Appeal 2006-2294
Application 09/683,779
1 either activating a first countermeasure comprising pre-arming airbags and
2 pretensioning motorized belt pretensioners, or activating that countermeasure and a
3 second countermeasure comprising adjusting the host vehicle suspension height in
4 response to object size and orientation (Office Action mailed Apr. 20, 2004, p. 5).
5 The Appellants argue that Farmer does not teach or suggest varying a
6 decision zone based upon relative speed (Br. 8). That limitation is in claim 10
7 from which claims 17 and 20 indirectly depend. The Appellants’ argument
8 regarding that limitation is not persuasive for the reason given above regarding
9 claim 10.
10 The Appellants argue that object orientation is not set forth in Lemelson (Br.
11 8). The object vehicle’s direction of travel determined by Lemelson (Lemelson,
12 col. 2, ll. 34-35) is a measure of its orientation.
13 For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
14 Examiner’s rejections.
15 DECISION
16 The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3, 5-16, 18 and 19 over
17 Lemelson, claim 4 over Lemelson in view of Kosiak, and claims 17 and 20 over
18 Lemelson in view of Farmer are affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013