Appeal No. 2003-1747
Application 09/647,296
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 8
through 10, 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bauer, for the reasons aptly set forth by
appellants in their brief and reply brief, we agree that Bauer
does not identically disclose each and every limitation of
independent claim 8 on appeal. More particularly, while each
IPOS or slave in the system of Bauer (Figs. 11-12) is apparently
associated with a squib actuator for a particular restraint
device and includes a unique address so as to be triggered from a
central control unit (ECU) according to an appropriate firing
sequence, and in that sense is independent of each of the other
IPOS/slave devices associated with other specific restraint
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007