Appeal No. 2006-1482
Application No. 10/619,890
Adams of a detonator for use in mining and blasting having
firing-readiness diagnostics features as claimed.
From our review of the Declaration, we agree with the
examiner (answer, page 12) that the:
declaration is not related to the instant application
or the Adams Patent. The May 29, 2002 declaration
under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 22 April 2004 is insufficient
to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 10-15
based upon Adams as set forth above because: it refers
only to the system described in the application
referenced by the declaration and not to the individual
claims of the instant application.
We add that the Declaration’s averments regarding the Marshall
and Bailey patents are not relevant because these references are
not applied against the claims. Of note is that the Adams
reference is not referred to in the Declaration. In addition,
the assertions regarding the applied prior art being non-
analogous, and lack of suggestion or motivation, are not relevant
as the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Although the
Declaration does refer (page 2) to an automotive igniter needing
a smaller diameter to fit within a standard detonator shell, we
note that it is not necessary to bodily combine references. In
addition, there is nothing in the Declaration as to the size of a
“standard detonator shell.” Nor does the Declaration address the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007