Appeal No. 2006-1482
Application No. 10/619,890
detonator to ignite the reactive gases (as per the LemurZone
article).
Nor are we persuaded by appellants’ assertion (brief, page
6) that Adams does not disclose the claimed electronic detonator
having firing-readiness diagnostics. Adams discloses (col. 4,
lines 64-66) that the controller 59 is an application specific
integrated circuit (ASIC) that provides, inter alia, diagnostic
functions for the igniter. Adams additionally discloses (col. 4,
lines 24-28) that "[t]he controller has diagnostic means for
comparing igniter controller integrity data, energy storage
capacity data, and firing loop (heating means activation
circuitry) integrity data to predetermined limits and generating
fault warning messages and integrity status messages to the ECU."
From these disclosures of Adams, we find that Adams discloses
firing-readiness diagnostics.
Nor are we persuaded by appellants’ assertion (brief, page
6) that col. 1, lines 23-26 of Adams is nothing more than a
general, tangential, and non-enabling background comment that
has nothing to do with the rest of the patent’s disclosure. If
appellants want to assert the non-enablement of the cited portion
of the reference, appellants should provide evidence that the
disclosure would have required undue experimentation by an
artisan in order to make and use the invention. From our review
of the record, we find no convincing evidence that an artisan
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007