Appeal No. 2002-0029 8
Application No. 09/437535
causing significant injury. The problem with this argument is that it does not take into
account the teaching of White (see, for example, column 3, lines 2-7) that deployment
of the airbag may be inhibited if the position of the passenger is such that deployment
would cause greater injury than the likely injury attendant to unimpeded passenger
contact with fixed interior structures. In other words, White’s system is designed to
inhibit deployment of the airbag if the passenger is so close to the airbag that
deployment would likely cause more harm than good.
Turning to claim 10, we are also in agreement with the examiner that it also
would have been obvious to provide determining means and control circuit means of
the type disclosed by White in the airbag restraint system of Kaji for controlling
deployment of Kaji’s side airbags based on the presence of the occupant. Suggestion
for this is provided in White at column 1, lines 13-17, wherein the sensing means is
stated to include means for sensing the size, position and presence of a passenger for
the purpose of, among other things, inhibiting operation of the airbag. Clearly, inhibiting
operation of the airbag based on whether or not a passenger is present would be
desirable in both White’s front airbag system and Kaji’s side airbag system in order to
prevent needless deployment of the airbag when no one is present in the adjacent seat.
Accordingly, we will sustain the standing § 103(a) rejection of claim 10 as being
unpatentable over Kaji in view of White. We will also sustain the standing § 103(a)
LJS/
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007