Appeal No. 2001-2371
Application 09/318,259
formed in the casing only at the middle in the
longitudinal direction of the casing to communicate
with the second chamber so that when the gas
generant in the second chamber is ignited, a gas is
ejected through the second holes at the middle of
the casing to equally inflate the airbag in the
longitudinal direction.
In the final rejection, the examiner takes the view that
the Japanese reference does not disclose holes positioned
“only” near the partition for the first chamber and “only” at
the middle of the casing for the second chamber, and concludes
that
[i]t would have been an obvious matter of
design choice to have holes on the casing only in
one specific area for each chamber, since applicant
has not disclose[d] [that] having holes only in one
area of the casing solves any stated problem or is
for any particular purpose and it appears that the
invention would perform equally well with holes in
the entire length of the casing.
It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have holes only on one area of the
length of the casing, since it has been held that
rearranging parts of an invention involves only
routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, [181 F.2d
1019,] 86 USPQ 70 [(CCPA 1950)] [final rejection,
page 2].
In the answer (see pages 3 and 4), the examiner advances
the seemingly contradictory viewpoint that, due to the
“comprising” transition phrase employed therein, claim 7 does
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007