Ex Parte KESHAVARAJ - Page 4




              Appeal No. 2003-0220                                                                  Page 4                
              Application No. 09/478,871                                                                                  

                            1.  An inflatable fabric cushion for use in a vehicle occupant                                
                            restraint system, said cushion having a face panel and a                                      
                            rear panel, wherein said face panel is in the shape of a first                                
                            twelve-sided polygon and said rear panel is in the shape of a                                 
                            second, congruent twelve-sided polygon, said face panel                                       
                            and said rear panel being joined along the respective                                         
                            coincident cut edges.                                                                         
                     The examiner has rejected this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious1 in                      
              view of the combined teachings of lino and Wessels.  It is the examiner’s position that                     
              all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 is disclosed by lino except for making the face                
              and rear panels in the shape of a twelve-sided polygon, but that it would have been                         
              obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lino airbag in such a manner as                   
              to meet the terms of the claim in view of the teachings of Wessels.  The appellant                          
              argues in rebuttal that Wessels is not analogous art, and that even if it were so                           


              considered, there would have been no suggestion to modify lino in the manner                                
              proposed by the examiner.                                                                                   




                     1The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to    
              one of ordinary skill in the art.  See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881     
              (CCPA 1981).  In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to       
              provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or
              to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.  See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,       
              973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).  To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,       
              suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of     
              ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.  See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
              Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).       








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007