Appeal No. 97-4455
Application 08/616,605
however, disclose an airbag in which two opposing side panels are of different cross-sectional
dimensions.
We begin our analysis by pointing out that the mere fact that the prior art structure could be
modified does not make such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability of
doing so. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present
situation we find no such suggestion. Kalberer is totally silent as to how the disclosed airbags could be
made and therefore, from our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a multitude of
choices, ranging from making each of a single panel such as a balloon, or a number of panels attached
together at their edges, with the orientation of each of the panels with respect to the others being
unspecified. Japanese ‘859 teaches making an airbag of three panels attached together at their edges,
and discloses in Figure 3 an embodiment having opposed panels (3) which are connected together by a
third panel (2). However, the oppositely oriented panels are of the same size.
We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in either of these references which
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to form the airbag disclosed in Kalberer such that one of
the pair of opposed panels is of greater cross-sectional dimensions than the other
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007