Appeal No. 2003-1648 Page 6
Application No. 09/648,359
side air bag if the driver side seat is rearward of the predetermined proximity and
electrically connected to said weight sensor to allow deployment of the first stage
of the passenger side air bag if the weight of the occupant is above the weight
deployment threshold.[2]
In the rejection of claims 1, 11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (final rejection, pp.
3-5), the examiner (1) set forth the pertinent teachings of Steffens, Fayyad and Moroto;
(2) ascertained3 that Steffens does not teach "driver and passenger side air bags
connected to the controller and first and second sensors sensing deceleration from
separate locations;" (3) concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Steffens to include a
controller controlling passenger and driver air bags as taught by Fayyad in order to
allow an operator to disable selected air bags and to include spaced sensors measuring
deceleration as taught by Moroto in order to confirm or verify a collision.
The appellants argue throughout both briefs that the examiner has failed to
present a prima facie case of obviousness. We agree. While we agree with the
examiner that the applied prior art is suggestive of providing Steffens' occupant restraint
2 We understand the appellants' phrase "first stage deployment" to mean actuating the air bag at a
first low pressure and the appellants' phrase "second stage deployment" to mean actuating the air bag at
a second higher pressure.
3 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007