Appeal No. 2000-0913
Application No. 09/067,123
the prior art as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled
in the art. Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Technology Corp.,
121 F.3d 1461, 1472, 43 USPQ2d 1481, 1489 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Here, Busch discloses a restraint device that includes a
single arm assembly in combination with a shoulder belt, and
in our view it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to utilize a similar combination of restraint
arm and belt in Niebuhr, instead of Niebuhr’s plural restraint
arm arrangement, this being merely the use of one known
occupant restraint arrangement in place of another.
As to claim 10, this claim depends from claim 2 and its
rejection has not been argued apart therefrom. Accordingly,
claim 10 will fall with claim 2.
For these reasons, the standing rejection of claims 2, 4,
6 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will be sustained.
Rejection (c)
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and adds that the restraint
device of claim 1 includes an air bag connected to the bar.
Cameron discloses a vehicle seat belt having an integral air
bag. The examiner’s reliance on Cameron’s teachings as
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007