Appeal No. 2006-0821 Παγε 5
Application No. 09/733,813
welded onto element 10, and closing the casing 3 (col. 4, lines 25 to 29). As such,
Refouvelet suggests that when substantially all of the detonator is covered by the
insulating material it is done by securing two pieces together.
The appellants argue that the teachings of Refouvelet and Taylor can not be
combined in the manner proposed by the examiner and that there would be no
motivation to do so. In support of this position, the appellants have filed a declaration
executed by Vahan Avetisian who is one of the inventors. This declaration states:
. . . because the open-ended/non-hermetic upper end of the
Refouvelet initiator teaches away from the possibility of
molding a body in that region (i.e.,providing an "overmolded"
body) - the adjacent charge would present an undue hazard
of auto-ignition under the heat and pressure of the process.
The fact that Refouvelet's Fig. 2 embodiment shows a two-
piece non-unitary, non-integral body further precludes such
an implication. [paragraph 4 of the declaration].
We agree with the appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated by the teachings of Refouvelet and Taylor to mold an insulator over the
substantially the entire detonator of Refouvelet as such molding process would create
an explosion danger due to the heat and pressure involved in the process.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 5, 8 to 11, 26 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Refouvelet in view of Craig. Craig is
relied on by the examiner for teaching a nonconductive molded body surrounding
substantially all of the initiator. The examiner concludes:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007