Appeal No. 95-2124
Application 08/076,789
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief, the
examiner’s answer and supplemental answer for the full details
thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have reached the determination that the
applied prior art does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of the claims on
appeal. Therefore, the rejections of the claims on appeal are
reversed. Our reasoning follows.
The examiner has rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bishop.
We are in agreement with the examiner that Bishop discloses
a casing 56 covering the airbag which is stored in a folded
condition. The following is Bishop’s disclosure with respect
to the casing 56:
The material (sack, band, etc.) 56 is chosen
of a material having a tensile strength
sufficient to maintain the bag 32 in its
predeployment condition. The strength of the
material 56 is such that during initial
deployment thereof, the deployment forces are
sufficient to rupture it thereby permitting
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007