Appeal No. 2001-2392 Page 7
Application No. 09/114,962
conclude that considering Breed to be the primary reference instead of Haviland does not
overcome the problem discussed above with regard to claims 1 and 28, for it is still
necessary to the rejection to place the Breed sensor in the Haviland side airbag system, a
modification which we concluded above failed for lack of proper suggestion to combine
the references to achieve such a result. That shortcoming is not cured by further
considering the Merhar, which was cited for disclosing an electronic crash sensing system
based on the movement of a mass and a piezoelectric crystal.
The rejection of claims 2-4, 14 and 30 is not sustained.
The Rejection Of Claims 5, 7, 9 and 11
These claims depend from claim 1, and the addition of Spies to Breed and
Haviland does not overcome the problems we found in combining the latter two references.
The rejection of claims 5, 7, 9 and 11 is not sustained.
The Rejection Of Claim 13
This rejection adds Lau to Haviland and Breed for its teaching of mounting the
sensor on the door pillar between the inner and outer panels. Be that as it may, as was the
case with the addition of other third references to Haviland and Breed, Lau fails to
overcome the basic problem of lack of suggestion to combine Haviland and Breed. The
rejection of claim 13 therefore also is not sustained.
The Rejection Of Claim 31
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007