Appeal No. 98-0680
Application No. 08/685,160
considered to be "generally towards an oppositely seated
vehicle occupant" (emphasis added) as claimed. Therefore, we
will sustain the rejection of claims 25, 30, 31, 35 and 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Good in view
of Rion and Sakurai.
Considering last the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 22 and 23 as being unpatentable over Good in view of
Rion and claims 32-34 as being unpatentable over Good in view
of Rion and Sakurai, the examiner has taken the position that
the first area of Rion can be at least 60% of the
gas flow area comprised of first and second areas
even if the holes are uniformly depending on where
the first area is defined to end. [Answer, page 8.]
We are at a loss to understand the examiner's position. The
first area is clearly defined as being "adjacent" the first
end of the reaction canister. We find nothing in the combined
teachings of the relied on prior art which either teaches or
fairly suggests such an arrangement. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 22 and
23 based on the combined teachings of Good and Rion and of
claims 32-34 based on the combined teachings of Good, Rion and
Sakurai.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007