Appeal No. 96-1256
Application 08/257,080
primary references, on the seat itself. While it may be
somewhat more advantageous to enclose the airbag in a seat-
mounted armrest, as appellant contends, we consider that any
such advantages would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art. Contrary to appellant’s argument, we do not believe that
the examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious was the result of "twenty-twenty
hindsight based upon applicant’s own teachings" (brief, page
6), but rather was the result of applying Sinnhuber’s clear
teaching of locating an airbag in an armrest to a particular
type of armrest, i.e., to the seat-mounted movable armrests
known in the prior art, as exemplified by the primary
references.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 42.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claim 42 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007