Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
The Examiner responds that Hermann actually discloses three
different crash classifications on lines 35-48, column 7. The
first classification is a head on collision where the driver's
air bag and belt retractor would be activated. The second
classification is a side impact where the side impact air bags
and head air bags are activated. The third classification is a
roll over where a roll over bar and head air bags are activated.
The Examiner continues
If the system operated as the appellant asserts, the
evaluation device would go through a sequence of
checking whether the driver's airbag should be
operated, then check if the belt retractor should be
activated, then the side airbag and so on. But from
the disclosure of Hermann it is very clear that the
sensors are examined to determine a type of crash, such
as a roll over or front impact, and then when this type
or 'class' of crash is determined, the appropriate
devices are activated. Examiner's Answer at pages 3
and 4.
The Examiner concludes that "when Hermann is sampling the
acceleration signals they must be put into memory in the
evaluation device in order to make a comparison to the thresholds
that define the types or 'classes' of crashes previously
mentioned. The appellant seems to be relying on the terminology
of 'characterization table,' but that is simply a space in memory
to store the sensor measurements." Examiner's Answer at page 4.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007