Appeal No. 95-3828
Application 07/868,037
unpatentability.” Here the examiner has not met the initial
burden of explaining why, given the definition of “modified
huckaback” in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the
art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 16 through 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
B. The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The fabric of claim 16 is required to be gas-permeable
and useful, without modification, as the gas-releasing part of
an airbag (see also claims 20, 21, 24 and 25). Krummheuer I,
the examiner’s primary reference, is directed to yarn and
fabric for the production of a one-part airbag of low air
permeability (column 3, lines 5-21, 49-51, 67-68, and column
4, lines 1-2).
The examiner attempts to combine the dense, low air
permeability yarn and fabric of Krummheuer I with the
teachings of Krummheuer II (answer, page 4). However,
Krummheuer II is directed to a two-part airbag with a low air
permeability fabric being used for the contact part of the
airbag and a high air permeability fabric being used for the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007