Appeal No. 2003-1153 Application No. 09/349,214 The Examiner responds that Hermann actually discloses three different crash classifications on lines 35-48, column 7. The first classification is a head on collision where the driver's air bag and belt retractor would be activated. The second classification is a side impact where the side impact air bags and head air bags are activated. The third classification is a roll over where a roll over bar and head air bags are activated. The Examiner continues If the system operated as the appellant asserts, the evaluation device would go through a sequence of checking whether the driver's airbag should be operated, then check if the belt retractor should be activated, then the side airbag and so on. But from the disclosure of Hermann it is very clear that the sensors are examined to determine a type of crash, such as a roll over or front impact, and then when this type or 'class' of crash is determined, the appropriate devices are activated. Examiner's Answer at pages 3 and 4. The Examiner concludes that "when Hermann is sampling the acceleration signals they must be put into memory in the evaluation device in order to make a comparison to the thresholds that define the types or 'classes' of crashes previously mentioned. The appellant seems to be relying on the terminology of 'characterization table,' but that is simply a space in memory to store the sensor measurements." Examiner's Answer at page 4. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007