Appeal No. 2003-0749 Page 5
Application No. 09/332,070
weighing 120 pounds is different than one for an occupant
weighing 300 pounds.
By “to vary the voltage applied ...so that the locking
force applied to the electrode is varied to obtain a desired
locking characteristic of the retractor” (Blake et al, column 2,
lines 58-62), it is deemed that such inherently includes the
instance where a voltage value less than the “high voltage
differential” which produces the fully locked state is applied
resulting in some rotation of the disk and reel and therefore
some unwinding of the seatbelt (i.e. a state between the
freely-rotating state and the fully locked state). There does
not seem to be any benefit or reason to apply a voltage
higher than the “high voltage differential” which produces the
fully locked state.
Furthermore, since the seated occupant can be of
any of a variety of sizes and weights, it is deemed that a
much-heavier-than-normal occupant will produce an inertia
force higher than the locking force in Blake et al resulting in
some unwinding of the seatbelt.
The examiner’s statement that, on the way to the high voltage and to the solid
state, the voltage has gone through some intermediate voltages where the fluid has a
viscosity which provides damping, is speculative at best without further details as to
how the voltage is generated by Blake’s high voltage generating unit and transmitted to
the electrode. Further, it is not apparent to us why the high voltage for effecting a solid
state of the electro-rheological fluid would differ depending on the weight of the seated
occupant. The required voltage would appear to be determined by the properties of the
fluid itself. Finally, while Blake discloses that the locking force may be varied by varying
the applied voltage, Blake gives absolutely no indication that a locking force lower than
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007