Appeal No. 2001-2392 Page 10
Application No. 09/114,962
disposal. It is significant that in both Breed and Spies the sensors communicate with the
inflator housing through cavities in the exterior wall thereof.
We therefore are of the view that the combined teachings of Breed and Spies
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
claims 16 and 22, and we will sustain the rejection of these claims and of dependent
claims 17-19, 23, 24 and 27, the patentability of which were not separately argued. In
arriving at this conclusion, we have carefully considered the appellant’s arguments but
have not been persuaded that the rejection should not be sustained, for we do not agree
that the Spies sensor is incompatible with the Breed system.
The appellant has argued that dependent claims 21 and 26 are separately
patentable because the Spies primer is not arranged in the same housing as the gas
generating material. That is not correct, for Spies discloses in Figure 1a that housing (1)
encapsulates an electronic integrated circuit (2) and a primer (4). The rejection of claims
21 and 26 also is sustained.
SUMMARY
The rejections of claims 1-7, 9-14 and 28-31 are not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007