Appeal No. 2002-0029 3
Application No. 09/437535
Preliminary Matters
At the outset, we observe that in responding to appellants’ arguments in the
“Response to Argument” section of the answer, the examiner appears to take the
position that rejections (1) and (2) are based on the combined teachings of Kaji and
White. This apparent shift of position on the examiner’s part prompted a reply brief
from appellants wherein they questioned whether rejections (1) and (2) had been
withdrawn in favor of a new rejection of claims 20-22, 24, 25, 28-30, 32 and 33 based
on the combination of Kaji and White. In Paper No. 16, the examiner stated that the
answer contained a typographical error and that the rejections of claims 20-22, 24, 25,
28-30, 32 and 33 remain as stated in the final rejection. Accordingly, we consider
rejection (1) to be an anticipation rejection under § 102(b) based solely on Kaji, and
rejection (2) to be an obviousness rejection under § 103(a) based solely on White.
Rejection (1)
Independent claims 20 and 28, as well as claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32 and
33 that depend therefrom, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Kaji.
Independent claim 20 is directed to a method for controlling deployment of a side
airbag and includes the step of determining the position of at least a part of the
occupant, and the step of controlling deployment of the side airbag based on the
determined position of the at least one part of the occupant.
LJS/
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007