Appeal No. 2006-1482
Application No. 10/619,890
disclosure in Adams of igniting reactive materials such as
explosives in mines. Accordingly, the Declaration has been given
little weight.
We additionally note that the examiner has relied upon five
additional documents obtained from the Internet, along with a
dictionary definition (answer, pages 3, 4 and 9-11) to support
the examiner’s interpretation of the claim language. Appellants
could have filed a reply brief to rebut the examiner’s assertions
but have not done so. However, because the LemurZone article is
more relevant to the additional documents relied upon by the
examiner, we find them to be cumulative to Adams.
From all of the above, we find that Adams anticipates the
language of claim 1, for the reasons advanced by the examiner, as
amplified by our comments. The rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
We turn next to independent claim 12. As claim 12 was
argued together with claim 1, we affirm the rejection of claim 12
for the same reasons.
We turn next to claims 3-5. As these claims have been
argued as a group by appellant, we select claim 3 as
representative of the group. Turning to claim 3, the claim
requires that the igniter includes an ignition element and that
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007