Ex Parte Avetisian et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2006-0821                                                                 Παγε 2                                       
              Application No. 09/733,813                                                                                                        


                     The appellants' invention relates to a pyrotechnic initiator having an integral,                                           
              unitary, overmolded body (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under appeal is set                                         
              forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.                                                                                   
                                                     The prior art                                                                              
                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                                            
              appealed claims are:                                                                                                              
              Taylor et al. (Taylor)   2,741,179   Apr.  10, 1956                                                                               
              Seavey      2,968,985   Jan.  24, 1961                                                                                            
              Craig et al. (Craig)    3,906,858   Sep. 23, 1975                                                                                 
              Refouvelet et al. (Refouvelet)  5,576,509   Nov. 19, 1996                                                                         
              Hansen et al. (Hansen)   5,932,832   Aug.   3, 1999                                                                               
              Swann et al. (Swann)   6,295,935   Oct.    2, 2001                                                                                

                                                    The rejections                                                                              
                     Claims 1 to 5, 8 to 11, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                            
              unpatentable over Refouvelet in view of Taylor.                                                                                   
                     Claims 1 to 5, 8 to 11, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                            
              unpatentable over Refouvelet in view of Craig.                                                                                    
                     Claims 7 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                                                 
              over Refouvelet and either Taylor or Craig in view of Hansen.                                                                     
                     Claims 12, 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                                         
              unpatenable over Refouvelet and either Taylor or Craig in view of Swann.                                                          



















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007