Appeal No. 2003-1638
Application 09/511,741
appellants point out that the examiner provides no reasoning in support of his contention with
respect to the disclosure in Bowers (reply brief, page 3).
The disclosure at col. 4, lines 45-50 of Bowers reads as follows (italicized emphasis
supplied):
The tether 16 is a flexible member which connects the deployment door 14 with the
module 12. The tether 16 may be made from a fabric material, such as the nylon
material of the air bag. A first end portion 110 of the tether 16 is connected with the
deployment door 14 in a known manner (not shown) such as by insert molding.
Bowers discloses that tether 16b is flexible (col. 6, line 1), and the tethers 16, 16b and 16c
are depicted by a wavy line in the respective Bowers FIGs. 4, 6 and 7.
Based on this substantial evidence, we cannot agree with the examiner’s position.
We are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in this art would have viewed the wavy
tether lines in Bowers FIGs. 4, 6 and 7 as indicating a flexible fabric material attached to
the deployment door by insert molding in light of the disclosure of Bowers with respect to
tether material and its attachment that we quoted above. Indeed, such depiction of a tether
coupled with the disclosure thereof is in clear contrast to the integral tether/deployment
door formed by the single molded piece consisting of second cover part 44a and
deployment door 14a in FIG. 5.
Accordingly, because the examiner has not carried the burden of reestablishing a prima
facie case of obviousness in light of appellants’ arguments with respect to the teachings that one
of ordinary skill in this art would have found in Bowers, we reverse all of the grounds of
rejection advanced on appeal.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007