Appeal No. 98-2398
Application No. 08/815,251
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner’s position is not well founded and will therefore
not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Like appellant, we note that independent claims 1 and 11
on appeal each recite "an ignition droplet adhering to said
ohmic heating element" of the igniter, while method claim 16
sets forth the steps of "depositing an ignition droplet on
said ohmic heating element in a fluid condition" and then
curing the resin binder of the droplet to cause the droplet to
adhere to the ohmic heating element. As explained in the
specification (page 10) and as can be clearly seen in
appellant’s drawing Figures 2 and 3, the "ignition droplet"
(46)
has the shape of a somewhat spherical segment
with a generally circular periphery centered on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007