Appeal No. 1997-0202
Application No. 08/247,709
enablement of a particular light flashing pattern dependent on
the combined conditions of the ignition being off and the
deceleration signal level exceeding a third threshold level
intermediate the first and second threshold levels. Our reading
of Ehrlich finds no teaching or suggestion of such a feature.
Although the Examiner has made reference (Answer, page 18) to
Ehrlich’s description of a collision condition “Gee” switch at
column 9, lines 1-15 which operates “. . . whenever there is an
abrupt change in acceleration . . .,” we find such switch
operation to fall far short of meeting the requirements of sub-
paragraph e) of claim 9.
Since all of the claim limitations of independent claim 9
are not suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion
that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claim 9 nor of claim 17 dependent
thereon.
We now consider the rejection of dependent claims 11 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlich in view
of Okano. From the Examiner’s statement of the rejection, it is
apparent that Okano was applied for the sole purpose of
addressing the claimed safety device activation feature which the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007