Appeal No. 97-1544
Application 08/358,976
claim 21. This claim differs from claims 23 and 28 in that it
requires the sensor to be arranged in the crush zone “at a
given position” and “attached to at least one of said vehicle
elements in said crush zone,” with the switch of the sensor
and the at least one of said vehicle elements cooperating
“such that when said at least one of said elements deforms at
said given position upon said impact at at least said
prescribed threshold-value speed, bending of said actuating
member (in said switch) inten-tionally occurs resulting in
actuation of said switch.” As argued by appellant on pages
13-15 of the brief and in the reply
brief, the more specific requirement in claim 21 of the
cooperating relationship between the sensor/switch and the
vehicle element to which it is specifically attached at a
given location to cause bending of the actuating member of the
switch is not found in Matsui. Contrary to the examiner’s
position (answer, pages 7-8), we do not consider that the
recitations in appellant’s claim 21 noted above are merely
intended use, or that the sensor in Matsui (Figs. 15a, 15b)
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007