Appeal No. 96-3158
Application 08/065,857
April 17, 1995) was entered by the examiner. This amendment
canceled claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10, and amended claims 1
and 13. It is apparent from the record that claims 11 and 12
now stand objected to and have been indicated by the examiner
to be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Independent
claim 13 has not been rejected by the examiner in the answer
and appears to now be allowed. Only the examiner’s prior art
rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 8 and 9 remain for our
consideration on appeal.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a vehicle passenger
restraint system. Independent claims 1 and 9 are
representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of
those claims appears in the Appendix to appellants’ brief.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Spies et al. (Spies ‘730) 4,117,730 Oct. 3, 1978
Bell et al. (Bell) 4,167,276 Sep. 11, 1979
Cornellier 4,597,251 Jul. 1, 1986
Husby et al. (Husby) 3,742,383 Jun. 22, 1989
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007