Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
14-18. Appellants further state that "there is no basis for the
examiner's statement that Hermann et al. disclose collecting and
storing crash severity measurements in a crash classification
table." Brief at page 5, lines 20 and 21. Appellants further
argue that "there is no basis for the examiner's statement that
Hermann et al. disclose consecutively applying crash
classification masks to the crash characterization table, and in
the event of a match between a given crash classification mask
and the stored sensor measurements, and identifying a restraint
deployment code from the given crash classification mask and
analyzing the identified restraint deployment code to determine
which of said plurality of restraints to deploy." Brief at page
5, lines 23-28. Appellants compare their invention to Hermann
and state at page 6 of the brief, lines 17-25:
Hermann et al. disclose a convention ad hoc approach in
which specified deployment conditions are evaluated for
each restraint, while Appellants disclose a novel
approach in which the sensor measurements are used to
characterize the crash, and once the type of crash is
determined, a set of deployment actions peculiar to
that type of crash are carried out. With Hermann's
approach, the evaluation unit must repeatedly check
whether the deployment conditions for each of the
various restraints have been met, whereas with
Appellants' approach the crash classification masks are
only applied to the crash characterization table until
a match is found, and then the various restraints
relevant to the identified type of crash are deployed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007