Appeal No. 95-2124
Application 08/076,789
the bag 32 to expand with negligible
restriction. The material used may be a
plastic film, cloth or spun bonded olefin
material such as that manufactured under the
name of TYVEK manufactured by DuPont. FIG.
4b schematically illustrates a front view of
the sub assembly 58 and in particular the
band or sack 56. To enhance deployment of
the air bag 32, the material 56 may include a
pre-weakened area such as a tear seam, heat
stress area or line of perforations all
generally designated by numeral 60. (Bishop,
column 4, lines 47-61).
As can readily be seen by the quoted portion, we do not agree
with the examiner’s finding of fact that Bishop discloses a
“soft plastic film,” nor the examiner’s finding that such a film
will be plastically deformable. It is clear from the disclosure
of Bishop that the material 56 is to afford negligible
restriction to the expanding airbag. Bishop further discloses
that the material 56 may be pre-weakened to afford this
negligible restriction. Therefore, it is our finding that the
covering material 56 of Bishop provides no material restriction
to the airbag expansion, nor would it have been obvious to
provide any material restriction to an airbag expansion from the
teaching of Bishop.
The appellants and the examiner both discuss an inherency
argument respecting whether Bishop would inherently “behave as
claimed.” Our finding that Bishop affords only negligible
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007