Appeal No. 2003-0749 Page 3
Application No. 09/332,070
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 24) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 23 and 25) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections.
Blake, the primary reference relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the claims,
discloses a seat belt retractor with an electro-rheological lock. The locking mechanism
comprises an electro-rheological fluid 62 contained within a cavity 42 of a housing
member 40. An electrode 48 is situated in the cavity. An electrical circuit including an
inertia sensor switch is provided to subject the electro-rheological fluid to a high voltage.
When the inertia sensor senses vehicle deceleration of a predetermined magnitude, a
high voltage control unit is energized to subject the electrode 48 and housing 40 to a
high voltage differential. Blake (column 2, lines 46-62) discloses that
[t]he electro-rheological fluid 62 is exposed to this
electric field and causes the water to be expelled from the
particles and act as an adhesive agent making the particles
congeal together. As a result, the electro-rheological fluid 62
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007