Appeal No. 2003-1747
Application 09/647,296
devices, we are in full agreement with appellants that there is
no disclosure in Bauer that each IPOS/slave in Bauer “decides...
whether at least one of the restraint devices assigned thereto is
to be deployed” (emphasis added), as required in claim 8 on
appeal. In Bauer, it is the central control unit (ECU), not the
IPOS/slave device, that decides whether an associated restraint
device will be deployed or not.
Although each IPOS/slave in Bauer is disclosed as including
a state-machine which contains “all logic functions for the
control of the internal operations, the diagnostic and the firing
operation after addressing” (page 77), we agree with appellants
that, when firing an associated squib actuator to deploy a
restraint device, there is no indication in Bauer that the state-
machine logic performs any decision making function. Instead, it
is apparent that the state-machine merely decodes the firing
order generated and sent by the central control unit (ECU) so as
to implement that order if the respective squib actuator and
restraint device associated with that IPOS/slave has been ordered
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007