Appeal No. 1999-1748
Application 08/846,285
In applying the test for obviousness,5 we conclude that it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art,
from a combined assessment of the Lee and Dahn teachings, to
replace the ignition coil 30 of Lee (Figs. 1 through 3) with a
thin film device (fuse or detonation initiation mechanism). As
we see it, the incentive on the part of one having ordinary skill
in the art for making the proposed modification would have simply
been to gain the self-evident benefits of the alternative thin
film device (fuse) disclosed by Dahn. Thus, we determine that
the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sound. It
is also clear to us that the Dahn teaching would have been
reasonably suggestive of the broadly recited subject matter of
each of claims 20 through 22, 24 through 29, and 35 through 38.
As to claims 22 and 25 through 27, it is apparent to us that
those having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
pin holes of a diameter of about 10 microns in the thin film
device (column 2, lines 15 through 27) disclosed by Dahn as
perforations generally conical in shape (Figs. 1 and 2), and
5 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007