Appeal No. 96-0998
Application No. 08/180,288
reference teaching or suggesting connecting an accelerometer to
an air bag actuator, we cannot conclude that the subject matter
of Claim 14 would have been obvious.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of Claim 13 but not
the rejection of Claim 14.
6. Obviousness over Warner
Claims 1, 7, 10-12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Warner. Examiner’s Answer at
8-9. These claims stand or fall together because Appellant has
not argued them separately.
The examiner and Appellant take the same positions on this
rejection over Warner as discussed in paragraph 3 above with
respect to Tognola. Examiner’s Answer at 9, lines 8-9; Appeal
Brief at 8, lines 2-14 and at 10, lines 13-16. Appellant’s
arguments, discussed above, are no more persuasive when applied
to Warner. Warner suggests adjusting his sensor by varying over
a wide range the number of turns of wire as well as the wire size
employed in the windings. In this way, Warner teaches, a
vibration sensor can be advantageously modified to indicate shock
or jerk. Column 5, lines 21-40. This would include “impact” and
“impulse” signals as recited in Claim 1.
Thus, this rejection will be sustained.
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007