Appeal No. 2001-2392 Page 6
Application No. 09/114,962
afforded one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper
basis for a rejection under Section 103. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We therefore conclude that the combined teachings of Haviland and Breed fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection. It follows that we also will not sustain the
rejection of claims 6, 10 and 12, which depend from claim 1.
Claim 28 sets forth the invention in terms quite similar to claim 1, and after reciting
that there is an inflator means comprising an inflator housing that is arranged at least
partially within the interior space of the system housing, states that the sensor housing is
arranged “proximate to said inflator housing.” It is our view that the reasoning we set forth1
above with regard to claim 1 also applies here, inasmuch as the required location of the
sensor housing places it within the side crush zone.
The rejection of independent claim 28 and dependent claim 29 is not sustained.
The Rejection Of Claims 2-4, 14 and 30
These claims stand rejected as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Haviland
and Merhar. They depend from claims 1 and 28, which were discussed previously, and
thus include all of the structure recited in the claims from which they depend. We first
1The common applicable definition of “proximate” is “very near.” See, for example, Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary, 1973, page 929.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007