Appeal No. 2003-0417
Application 09/080,207
THE REJECTION
Claims 5 through 7, 15 through 18 and 23 through 28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Heinz in view of Wipasuramonton.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
27) and to the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.
19 and 28) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of the rejection.2
DISCUSSION
Heinz, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a side
impact protection device 9 mounted within a vehicle door 8. The
device comprises an inflatable air bag 16, a filling device 15 in
the form of a gas generator 17, and a fill opening 21 in the air
bag communicating with the gas generator. The air bag includes
two chambers 22 and 23 partially separated by rebound straps 20
arranged to control the inflation of the chambers in accordance
with the sequence in which a passenger’s body typically will hit
the door in reaction to a side impact, i.e., the chamber 22
facing the passenger’s pelvis and chest area will inflate before
the chamber 23 facing the passenger’s head area. In this way,
2 Appended to the brief is an English language translation
of the Heinz reference prepared by the appellant.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007