Appeal No. 98-0680
Application No. 08/685,160
contention, inasmuch as the openings and face of this member
bear a remarkable resemblance to the "diffuser" 16 depicted by
the appellants in the embodiment of FIG. 1.
It is also the appellants' contention that
Rion specifies that the gas generator retainer
thereof provides a "robust, rigid structure" and
provides the chambers 22a and 22b wherein gas flow
is restricted to then be distributed to provide a
more uniform airbag inflation. Thus, the assembly
of Rion requires and relies on the prior art
approach of restricted gas flow . . . . [Reply
brief, pages 3 and 4.]
We must point out, however, that the primary reference to Good
teaches a member that is styled as a retainer 92 which, as we
noted above, can be considered to be a "diffuser" and appears
to have no significant restriction whatsoever. Contrary to
the apparent position of the appellants, when combining the
teachings
of references in order to establish obviousness under § 103,
it is not necessary that all of the features of the secondary
reference be bodily incorporated into the primary reference
(see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981)) and the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the
teaching of one prior art reference over the other without 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