Appeal No. 2002-0418
Application No. 08/872,836
With respect to dependent claim 35, appellants argue that Breed does not
control the rate at which the airbag is deployed. (See brief at page 7.) We disagree
with appellants. Clearly, columns 1 and 8 of Breed disclose that inflation is used to
control deployment based upon the size of the occupant. Therefore, we will sustain the
rejection of dependent claim 35.
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue that all of the claims
under the rejected claims specify a stereoscopic image analyzer or method that
determines the size of an object on a vehicle seat in response to a given amount that
the object is shifted between first and second images. (See brief at page 8.) We note
that the language of independent claim 1 recites “ to determine a size of the object in
response to a given amount that the object is shifted between the first and second
images.” Here, we note that the examiner indicates that considering “all six
arguments,” he disagrees with appellants. Yet, we find that the examiner provides
responses up to “[f]ourthly” then addresses ‘[l]astly.” (See answer at pages 8 and 9.)
We find no response to appellants’ fifth argument. Appellants argue that Tsuchiya is
concerned with images outside the vehicle to monitor traffic and does not sense the
size of a passenger inside a vehicle. (See brief at pages 8-9.) We find no response to
appellants’ discussion of the Tsuchiya reference beyond the examiner’s statement that
size is taught by Breed and need not be met by the Tsuchiya reference. We do not
understand the examiner’s disregard for this argument since the examiner is relying
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007