Appeal No. 2003-2172
Application No. 09/644,793
The first rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 7
through 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saderholm in view of Hirai.
A review of each of the Saderholm and Hirai and references
reveals to us that they individually teach what one having
ordinary skill in the art would recognize as respective
alternatives, i.e., sewing and adhesives, for securing airbag
sheets together. The examiner has not applied any prior art
revealing the knowledge in the airbag art of using stitching in
conjunction with adhesives.4 Since Saderholm and Hirai are the
only references applied by the examiner, the evidence before us
simply does not support a conclusion of obviousness relative to
claim 1 which requires, inter alia, a yarn sewed along the
peripheral portions of first and second panels of an airbag
within a range of width of elastic adhesive to connect the panels
4
4 Of record in this application are references which are
relevant to the claimed subject matter. We remand this
application to the examiner, infra, to assess these references
relative to appellants’ claimed subject matter.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007