Appeal No. 2006-1482
Application No. 10/619,890
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we make the
determinations which follow. We begin with claim 1.
Appellants' position (brief, page 4) is that Adams is
directed to an igniter for use in gas generators in vehicle
safety program. It is asserted (id.) that a detonator detonates
an explosive, while an igniter for a gas generator is not
intended to detonate an explosive, but rather to trigger the
burning, not detonation, of a gas generant such as is used to
inflate an airbag. Appellants acknowledge (brief, pages 5 and 6)
that Adams discloses “[i]t would also be advantageous to have
similar capabilities for selectively [i.e., simultaneously or
sequentially depending upon selected variables] igniting various
units of reactive materials, such as explosives, in mining or
demolition operations," (col. 1, lines 23-26). However,
appellants submit that Adams does not adequately disclose the
claimed electronic detonator having firing-readiness diagnostics,
because "one of ordinary skill in the art could [not] have
combined [Adams'] description ... with his own knowledge to make
the claimed invention." Appellants add (id.) that the quoted
passage of Adams is nothing more than a general, tangential, and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007