Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
deployment code" in claim 1. Therefore, a combination of Hermann
and Kincaid still does not provide the missing piece "crash
classification mask" used in a logical operation to combine with
the sensor data to arrive at "a restraint deployment code."
Without an objective teaching or suggestion of the crash
classification mask and restraint deployment code in the prior
art, the Examiner cannot satisfy the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 4 as
obvious over Hermann in view of Kincaid.
Finally, we consider now the rejection of claims 5-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious by Hermann and Kincaid and
further in view of Iyoda.
We note that claim 5 recites the limitations "crash
classification mask" and "restraint deployment code" discussed
above due to their dependency. We further note that claim 5
recites additional limitations "an intrusion classification mask"
and "an intrusion deployment code" in steps (b) - (d).
We find that Iyoda also does not provide the missing
descriptive matter "crash classification mask" used in a logical
operation to combine with the sensor data to arrive at "a
restraint deployment code" in claim 1. Instead, Iyoda provides
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007