Appeal No. 2002-0418
Application No. 08/872,836
appellants merely paraphrase the language of claims and relies upon the arguments we
found unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 21. Appellants argue that the
combined teachings of the references do not teach or suggest determining the size of
person in the images much less controlling the airbag in response to such a size
determination. (See brief at page 13.) As discussed above, we found that Breed
teaches the use of plural images and distance determinations to determine size and the
control of the airbag based thereon. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and
we will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 22 and 24.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 21, 23, 25-27, and
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims
28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims
22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed; and the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-20, 33, 34, and 36-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007