Appeal No. 2002-0029 9
Application No. 09/437535
rejection of dependent claims 11, 12 and 17-19 since appellants state on page 4 of the
main brief that claims 10-12 and 17-19 stand or fall together.
Claim 7 depends from claim 2 and further requires that the receiver of the
determining means is mounted in the door of the vehicle. Bearing in mind that it is skill
in the art, rather than the converse, which we are to presume (In re Sovish, 769 F.2d
738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), we conclude that this arrangement
would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based in the
combined teachings of Kaji and White in that it would logically flow that the receiver
should be located in close proximity to the door mounted side airbag of Kaji in order to
accurately determine the position of the passenger relative to the airbag. Appellants’
argument to the contrary on page 10 of the main brief is not well taken because it fails
to take into account that the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the
applied references and not merely the teachings of White alone. We therefore will
sustain the standing § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 7, as well as dependent
claims 16, 37 and 38, which stand or fall with claim 7.
The rejection of method claim 36 as being unpatentable over Kaji in view of
White also will be sustained. Claim 36 depends from method claim 28 and sets forth a
method of controlling deployment of a side airbag based on both the presence or
absence of an occupant (claim 28) and the position of a part of the occupant (claim 36).
Based on White’s teaching at column 1, lines 15-27, that the control circuit thereof
LJS/
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007