Appeal No. 1999-2677
Application 08/878,769
side wall 5 and the pressure exerted by the air bag 8 when
inflated, has no apparent need for further securement. In
this light, it is evident that the proposed combination of the
two references stems from an impermissible hindsight
reconstruction of the appellants’ invention wherein the claims
have been used as a template to selectively combine disparate
elements in the prior art.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 30, or of claims 3, 22 and 23
which
depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over the Japanese
reference in view of the British reference.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
HARRISON E. MCCANDLISH )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007