Appeal No. 96-3158
Application 08/065,857
reasoning in support of the above-noted rejections and to the
appeal brief (Paper No. 25, filed August 3, 1995) and reply
brief (Paper No. 29, filed January 10, 1996) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this
appeal has included a careful assessment of appellants’
specification and claims, the applied prior art references,
and the respective positions advanced by appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have come to the
conclusion, for the reasons which follow, that the examiner's
rejections of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
not well founded and, therefore, will not be sustained.
Independent claim 1 on appeal defines a vehicle passenger
restraint system that includes a gas generator having “a
normally closed first housing” (e.g., 7 in Figure 1), which
first housing contains a solid fuel (10) as a charge to
generate gas. The system also includes electronic ignition
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007