Appeal No. 98-0680
Application No. 08/685,160
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellants' invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellants in the brief and reply brief, and
by the examiner in the answer. As a consequence of this
review, we will sustain the rejections of claims 1, 18-21, 24-
31, 35 and 36. We will not, however, sustain the rejections
of 22, 23 and 32-34.
Considering first the rejection of claims 1, 18-21, 24
and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Good in view of Rion, the examiner made the findings that (1)
Good teaches a gas inflator or generator 72, a pillow or air
bag 100, an inflation gas diffuser or "retainer" 92 having at
least one gas inflation passage and an elongated open-mouth
reaction canister 30 having sides that include sections
extending beyond the diffuser or retainer 92 and (2) Rion
teaches an inflation assembly for an air bag 80 including a
non-symmetric or hybrid gas inflator 12 and a diffuser or
manifold 10 having a row of openings 44a-44d that distribute
the gas evenly for the purpose of preventing the air bag "to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007