Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
other words, Hermann's central controller 3 processes the signals
provided by the sensors by comparing them with a predetermined
value below which the protection device cannot be triggered. We
find that Hermann teaches three different crash classifications
and a threshold value with which the acceleration signals or
signals derived from the sensors is compared. Thus, when Hermann
is sampling the acceleration signals, the signals must be put
into memory in the evaluation device in order to make a
comparison with the thresholds that define the types or "classes"
of crashes previously mentioned. However, we fail to find that
the claimed features "crash classification mask for each of the
crash classifications" and the "restraint deployment code
identifying which of the restraints should be deployed" are
necessarily present in the things described by Hermann, and that
it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. In fact,
Hermann is totally silent about the classification masks and
restraint deployment codes. Hermann only teaches the signals and
the comparison of the signals with the threshold value. The
portions of column 7, lines 35-48 that the Examiner relies on for
rejecting claim 1 merely address the problem of identifying which
of the restraints should be deployed by comparison of the signals
with the threshold value. Hermann's control device does not
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007