Appeal No. 2006-1482
Application No. 10/619,890
From all of the above, we have not given patentable weight
to the language “for use in mining or blasting” as recited in the
preamble of claim 1. In any event, even if we were to give
patentable weight to the preamble, we find that the language of
the preamble is met by Adams. The reference discloses (col. 1,
lines 23-26) that “it would also be advantageous to have similar
capabilities for selectively igniting various units of reactive
materials, such as explosives, in mining or demolition
operations." From the disclosure of igniting explosives in
mining or demolition operations, we agree with the examiner
(answer, page 7) that Adams is useful in mining or blasting.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion (brief, page
4) that Adams does not disclose a detonator because a detonator
detonates an explosive, whereas an igniter for a gas generator
[as in Adams] triggers burning, not detonation of the gas
generant used to inflate an airbag. As noted by the examiner
(answer, page 7), from Adams’ disclosure (col. 1, lines 23-26)
of igniting reactive materials, such as explosives, we find
that the igniter of Adams is also a detonator, as it ignites
(or detonates) reactive materials, causing them to explode. In
addition, we find from Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed.,
©1996 that “detonator” is defined as “a device or small quantity
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007