Appeal No. 98-0680
Application No. 08/685,160
[the] area adjacent one or more of the reaction
canister first and second ends. [Brief, page 11.]
We are unpersuaded by the appellants' arguments. It is
true that the claims on appeal do not require the gas to be
distributed evenly; nevertheless, we share the examiner's view
that a combined consideration of Good and Rion would have
fairly suggested to the artisan to utilize a non-symmetric or
hybrid gas
generator to inflate the air bag of Good as taught by Rion.
In making this determination we note that the teachings of
Good and Rion, taken as a whole, establish that the use of
symmetric and non-symmetric gas generators are art-recognized
alternatives and one of ordinary skill in this art would have
been well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each.
See, e.g., In re Heinrich, 268 F.2d 753, 756, 122 USPQ 388,
390 (CCPA 1959). In modifying Good in accordance with the
teachings of Rion, we share the examiner's view that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have utilized evenly spaced
openings in the diffuser or retainer 92 of Good as taught by
Rion in order to achieve Rion's expressly stated advantage of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007