Appeal No. 2001-2392 Page 8
Application No. 09/114,962
This claim depends from claim 28. Consideration of Spies in addition to Haviland
and Breed does not alleviate the problem with combining the primary references in the
manner specified by the examiner, which we treated above with regard to claim 1. The
rejection of claim 31 is not sustained.
The Rejection Of Claims 16-19, 21-24, 26 and 27
These claims differ significantly from independent claims 1 and 28 in that they are
not directed to a vehicle and do not relate the components of the invention to a crush zone.
Independent claims 16 and 22 both recite, inter alia, an inflator housing containing an
ignitable gas and at least one passage extending between the gas generating material
and the interior of the airbag, and a crash sensor comprising “a sensor housing situated
exterior of said inflator housing” and including a micro-processor for determining whether
the movement of a sensing mass over time results in a value which is in excess of a
threshold value for causing the gas to be ignited. It is the examiner’s position that Breed
discloses all of the claimed subject matter except that the sensor housing is inside of the
inflator housing, but it would have been obvious to place the sensor element outside of the
sensor housing in view of Spies’ teaching in lines 1-6 of column 2 of providing that those
parts with critical fillings could be separated from other parts for recycling or disposal to
protect the environment (Paper No. 6, page 7).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007