Appeal No. 2000-0913
Application No. 09/067,123
From our perspective, the only way the teachings of Niebuhr,
Busch and Nilsson could be combined to arrive at the above
noted subject matter of claim 14 is through the use of
hindsight knowledge gleaned from first reading appellants’
disclosure. It follows that the § 103 rejection of claim 14,
as well as claims 16-18 that depend therefrom, based on
Niebuhr, Busch and Nilsson is not sustainable.
The rejection of claim 19 as being unpatentable over
Niebuhr, Busch and Cameron is not sustainable for essentially
the
same reasons set forth in the previous paragraph. In this
regard, while Cameron certainly teaches an integral air bag
mounted in the portion of the restraint device that is placed
around the driver’s lap area, the subject matter of claim 14,
from which claim 19 depends, could only be derived from the
combined teachings of Niebuhr, Busch and Cameron through the
use of impermissible hindsight.
Summary
The rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5 as being anticipated
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007