Appeal No. 2003-1828
Application No. 09/592,080
Claim 1, which is one of two independent claims, is
representative of the subject matter encompassed by the claims on
appeal:
1. An air bag sensor module for a vehicle comprising:
a base having an aperture extending therethrough, said
aperture having a retaining portion;
a sensor secured to said base for sensing vibrations caused
by a crash of the vehicle;
a fastener having a shaft with a head and a threaded portion
opposite said head with said threaded portion temporarily
retained within said retaining portion in a shipping position,
said threaded portion having a minor diameter with said shaft
portion having a shaft diameter less than said minor diameter.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner on
appeal are:
Kuzdak 6,106,207 Aug. 22, 2000
(effective filing date: Aug. 11, 1999)
Metcalf 1,719,301 Jul. 2, 1929
The following two rejections are before us for
consideration:
I. Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17 stand rejected for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of admitted prior art taken with
Kuzdak.
II. Claims 8 and 16 also stand rejected for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the admitted prior art taken
with Kuzdak, and further taken in combination with Metcalf.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007