Appeal No. 95-4350
Application No. 08/212,082
agree with appellant (Brief, page 17) that “[t]he Examiner’s
statement that more than one sensor type gives a more accurate
determination of whether the passenger restraint should be
activated is knowledge gained from Appellant’s specification, and
therefore is impermissible hindsight.” Thus, the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 19 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007