Appeal No. 2002-0029 4
Application No. 09/437535
Independent claim 28 is directed to a method for controlling deployment of a side
airbag and includes the step of determining whether an occupant is present in the seat,
and the step of controlling deployment of the side airbag based on the presence or
absence of an occupant in the seat.
The examiner’s rejection of these claims as being anticipated by Kaji appears to
be based on the examiner’s position, as stated on page 5 of the final rejection, that the
apparatus of Kaji, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the
claimed method. We agree with appellants, however, that there is no basis for
concluding that operating the apparatus of Kaji in its normal and usual manner would
result in the step of determining the position of at least a part of an occupant, as called
for in independent claim 20, or the step of determining whether an occupant is present
in the seat, as called for in independent claim 28.
For this reason, the standing rejection of claims 20-22, 24, 25, 28-30, 32 and 33
as being anticipated by Kaji cannot be sustained.
Rejection (2)
Claims 20-22, 24, 25, 28-30, 32 and 33 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over White.
In this instance, the examiner maintains (final rejection, pages 5-6) that it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify White “to include the
claimed method,” and that “[b]ecause the prior art discloses all the structure necessary
LJS/
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007