Appeal 2007-2195
Application 10/172,166
“comprising” language of claims 1, 11, and 17 do not preclude the presence
of ammonium nitrate, and Appellants’ claim 32, which requires up to 50
weight percent ammonium nitrate, indicates that the compositions of claims
1, 11, and 17 may include ammonium nitrate.
Appellants also contend that Taylor teaches away from including
potassium perchlorate by disclosing that potassium perchlorate presents
problems regarding the toxicity of effluent gas and filtering undesirable by-
products. However, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to balance the advantages of using potassium perchlorate
against the disadvantages discussed by Taylor. Indeed, Appellants make no
argument that they have somehow eliminated the problems associated with
using potassium perchlorate.
We now turn to the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Mendenhall.
Mendenhall, like Appellants, discloses a gas generant composition used in
automobile restraint systems comprising the presently claimed non-azide
nitrogen-containing gas generating fuel, a metal ammine nitrate oxidizer,
silicon dioxide, and up to 25% ammonium nitrate. Mendenhall provides the
igniting component by coating the composition with an alkali metal
perchlorate. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that there is no
meaningful distinction between the claimed gas generant composition
comprising potassium perchlorate and the composition of Mendenhall that is
coated with the same potassium perchlorate. We find this especially so since
the solvent that carries the potassium perchlorate also solubilizes at least one
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013