Appeal No. 96-3158
Application 08/065,857
As for the examiner’s citation of Cornellier for its
claimed “closed blade guard housing” (col. 4) and forwardly
open vertical slots in the forward wall thereof, not only do
we consider Cornellier to be nonanalogous art with regard to
the vehicle passenger restraint system of appellants
invention, but we also view the claim recitations of
Cornellier as being entirely irrelevant to a proper
interpretation of the separate “closed housing” or separate
“closed unit” recitations in appellants’ claims on appeal.
Thus, even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to have combined the teachings of Husby and
Bell, Husby, Bell and Spies ‘730, or either of those
combinations further in view of Cornellier, we agree with
appellants that the resulting passenger restraint system would
not render obvious that which is set forth in the claims
before us on appeal. For that reason, we refuse to sustain
the examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over either Husby, Bell and Spies
‘730, or Husby, Bell, Spies ‘730 and Cornellier. For the same
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007