Appeal No. 2002-0922
Application No. 09/305,531
suggestion or incentive to do so.”).
With respect to the examiner’s argument (answer, page 7)
that infrared bonding and electromagnetic welding would work
equally well, we note that Kauer teaches: “The bonds between the
front and back panels 12 and 24, even though occupying a small
amount of surface area, are strong enough to prevent the foil
switch 24 from exiting its switch pocket 20 during air bag
deployment.” (Column 6, lines 19-23.) The examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence to establish that infrared bonding
as described in Grimm would be equivalent with electromagnetic
welding in Kauer’s air bag cover assembly manufacturing method.
For these reasons, we are constrained to reverse the
examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claims
1, 2, and 4 as unpatentable over Kauer in view of Grimm and
Swartz.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007