Appeal No. 2003-1828
Application No. 09/592,080
We have carefully considered the record on appeal in light
of the positions taken by the appellants and by the examiner.
Having done so, we shall affirm the examiner’s rejection (I) only
as to claims 1-3, 7, 9-14 and 17, and reverse the rejections (I)
and (II) as to claims 4-6, 8 and 15-16, for the following
reasons:
With respect to claims 1-3, 7, 9-14 and 17, we conclude that
the admitted prior art taken with Kuzdak supports a prima facie
case of obviousness. As indicated in appellants’ specification
(page 1), typically air bag sensor modules are secured to a
vehicle structure using fastening elements. Preferably, the
fastening elements are secured to the vehicle structure only
under the compressive load of a threaded fastener to ensure
optimal crash pulse transmission. This is not in dispute.
Kuzdak relates generally to fastener assemblies, and teaches
that it is desirable for the fastener to be “captured” or
retained on a member to be attached to a support structure so
that the fastener is readily available when needed to effect the
attachment (col. 1, l. 1-15). We agree with the examiner that it
would have been prima facie obvious, within the purview of
35 U.S.C. § 103, to apply the teachings of Kuzdak in the context
of securing on air bag sensor module to a vehicle mounting
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007