Appeal No. 2003-0417
Application 09/080,207
the air bag effectively protects the passenger prior to full
inflation.
As conceded by the examiner (see page 2 in the final
rejection), the Heinz air bag does not respond to the limitations
in independent claim 23, and the corresponding limitations in
independent claim 26, calling for the lower boundary edge of the
air bag, in an unfolded mounted position, to extend at an angle
not equal to zero with respect to the longitudinal axis of the
gas generator so that during inflation the air bag is rotatable
through the angle in relation to the longitudinal axis into an
inflated operating position providing ideal protection for the
passenger. As disclosed in the underlying specification and set
forth in claim 26, the rotation stems from torque generated by
gas flow against the partition in the air bag. Setting the lower
boundary edge of the air bag in an unfolded mounted position at
an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the gas
generator compensates for the rotation to bring the air bag into
the ideal inflated operating position.
Wipasuramonton discloses a side impact protection device 80
mounted on the upper end of a vehicle seatback 22 reclined at an
angle of about 25° from the vertical. The device comprises a
housing 82, an inflator 84 and an air bag 90. The air bag, which
is configured to mirror and protect the neck and head of a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007