Appeal 2007-1254
Application 10/352,542
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 30, 32-36, 40, 45, 82, 84-86, 89-94, and 106-108 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pawlak (Answer 4).2
Appellants contend that Pawlak does not mention the compound
sodium nitrobenzoate, does not eliminate sulfur, teaches that ammonium
salts are not equivalent to alkali metal salts (i.e., sodium, potassium, and
lithium salts), and teaches the use of ammonium nitrobenzoate only as a
fuel, not as the ignition aid as presently claimed (Br. 4-10).
The Examiner contends that Pawlak teaches a propellant gas-
generating composition containing oxidizing agents and an organic
carboxylic acid or oxidizable derivative thereof, specifically teaching that
alkali metal or ammonium salts of this latter class of compounds may be
used, while disclosing the compound ammonium m-nitrobenzoate (Answer
4-5).
Accordingly, the issue presented in this appeal is as follows: does the
specific disclosure of ammonium m-nitrobenzoate as a fuel in the propellant
composition of Pawlak, with a teaching that alkali metal salts can also be
used, render obvious the ignition aid sodium nitrobenzoate salt in the
claimed propellant composition?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we
2 We refer to and cite from the Examiner’s Answer dated Nov. 24, 2006.
We also note that the Examiner inadvertently included claims 8 and 9 in the
rejection (Answer 4). However, claims 8-9 have been cancelled (Br. 2).
Accordingly, we only consider the claims as listed above.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013