Appeal No. 1999-1748
Application 08/846,285
spark plasma creating metal foil ignitor in ignition relationship
with the charge, and igniting the charge to convert the
exothermic weld metal material to weld metal.
Simply stated, it is our point of view that one having
ordinary skill in the art at issue would not have considered the
molten metal-liquid explosive device of Lee to carry out a method
of igniting exothermic weld material to convert the weld material
to weld metal, as set forth in method claim 1. Thus, even with
the Lee device modified to replace the ignition coil 30 with the
thin film device of Dahn, as proposed by the examiner, the now
claimed method would not be attained. It is for this reason that
the rejection of claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom cannot be
sustained.
ARTICLE AND COMBINATION CLAIMS
We sustain the rejection of claims 19 through 22, 24 through
29, and 35 through 38.
Initially, we note that, as disclosed (specification, page
4), an ignitor includes one or more “distortions” in the form of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007