Appeal No. 98-0680
Application No. 08/685,160
initially inflate asymmetrically" (column 4, lines 21 and 22).
The examiner then concluded that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify Good to include an elongated
inflator with an outlet adjacent one end and
openings arranged in the diffuser face member so as
to distribute gas evenly and hence prevent skewed
deployment while placing some of the openings
adjacent the ends of the diffuser and hence the ends
of the housing in view of Rion's teaching in order
to use a hybrid inflator while achieving even
distribution (column 2, lines 36-40 of Rion)(note
also this meets claim 27). As broadly recited in
claim 18, in the combination Rion teaches openings
44a-44d longitudinally spaced from each other, and
these spaced openings meet at least one of the
conditions of the claim (i.e., opening 44a is spaced
from opening in an area adjacent the first end).
[Final rejection, page 3.]
In argument the appellants note various alleged
deficiencies of the references individually and urge that the
examiner's position
indicates a failure to appreciate the nature of the
invention. More specifically, the claimed invention
does not require that the diffuser "distribute gas
evenly" but rather that the air bag deploy in a non-
skewed manner without the flow of inflation gas
through the diffuser being significantly restricted.
As stated above, in the claimed invention the
diffuser and the reaction canister cooperate whereby
the air bag deploys from the reaction canister in a
non-skewed manner without the flow of inflation gas
through the diffuser being significantly restricted
and such a result is achieved through the proper
specified placement of the diffuser gas flow through
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007