Appeal No. 2001-2371
Application 09/318,259
Independent claim 9 recites an airbag device comprising
an elongated container, an airbag folded and accommodated in
the container, and an inflator for inflating the airbag. The
inflator limitations in claim 9 are identical to those in
claim 7.
Because the Japanese reference does not teach such a
combination, the examiner relies on the disclosure by the
Research reference of an airbag device to conclude that “[i]t
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to combine the inflator
of the Japanese patent with the air bag device of the research
document” (final rejection, page 3). While this conclusion is
reasonable on its face and has not been disputed by the
appellant, the Research reference does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of the Japanese reference with respect to
the inflator hole limitations. Thus, the combined teachings
of the Japanese and Research references do not support a
conclusion of obviousness with respect to the subject matter
recited in claim 9.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007