Appeal No. 2002-0029 11
Application No. 09/437535
presence. Accordingly, as argued, we will also sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim
40 based on the combination of Kaji and White.
Remand
This case is remanded to the examiner for the following reasons.
In light of our affirmance of the standing § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-
12, 16-19 and 36-40, the examiner should consider whether any of claims 20-22, 24,
25, 28-30, 32 and 33 are unpatentable over prior art of which the examiner is aware,
and in particular the teachings of Kaji and White.
In addition, the examiner should also consider whether any of claims 4-6, 9, 13-
15, 23, 26, 27, 31, 34 and 35, indicated by the examiner as being allowable if rewritten
in independent form, are unpatentable over prior art of which the examiner is aware,
and in particular the teachings of Kaji and White. For example, the additional limitation
of claim 9, which depends from claim 1, appears to be met by White’s control circuit
when it inhibits deployment of the airbag (column 1, lines 23-27).
Summary
The rejection of claims 20-22, 24, 25, 28-30, 32 and 33 as being anticipated by
Kaji is reversed.
The rejection of claims 20-22, 24, 25, 28-30, 32 and 33 as being unpatentable
over White is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-12, 16-19 and 36-40 is affirmed.
LJS/
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007