Appeal No. 2003-1747
Application 09/647,296
to be deployed. Thus, the state-machine logic in each IPOS/slave
in Bauer does not decide whether to deploy an associated
restraint device, but rather only passively carries out the
firing decision already made by the central control unit (ECU).
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 10, 12 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bauer.
Dependent claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Scholz. After
considering the collective teachings of the applied prior art, we
agree with appellants that the teachings of Scholz fail to makeup
for or cure the critical deficiencies of Bauer as noted above.
Thus, it follows that the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bauer in
view of Scholz will likewise not be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007