Appeal No. 95-4350
Application No. 08/212,082
Claims 5, 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Diller in view of Feldmaier and
Blackburn.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4), Diller
discloses (Figure 1) a single sensor 14 that senses deceleration
of a vehicle during a crash event, and a plurality of crash
evaluation circuits EV-1, EV-2 and EV-3 for analyzing the
deceleration signal, but “does not explicitly disclose a high
frequency sensing circuit for sensing [a] high frequency signal
due to the deformation of components associated with the vehicle
during the crash event.” The examiner concludes (Answer, page 4)
that:
Feldmaier suggests a crash sensing and occupant
restraint activating apparatus which has a welded unit
body structure including a side rail extending back
from the front of the vehicle on each side, an acoustic
sensor generating a signal in response to acoustic
vibrations due to metal deformation in a frontal crash
(see at least the Abstract). The suggestion of the
Feldmaier patent in at least the Abstract would have
motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the teaching of Feldmaier with the system of Diller by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007