Appeal No. 2005-2656
Application No. 09/805,586
appellant’s specification is not commensurate with the scope of the appealed claims,
none of which actually recites parameters of the sort in question. Independent claims 1,
11 and 12 simply call for the expansion restraining elements to remain operative upon
full inflation of the air bag cushion without failing. Relevant portions of the original
specification indicate that the expansion restraining elements (1) “provide the desired
deployed [air bag] configuration” (page 2), (2) “may be of structurally similar character to
[the air bag] connective perimeter seams” (page 3), (3) “substantially preclud[e]
inflatable expansion at the locations of their occurrence” (page 8), (4) “may be utilized to
obtain desired expanded profile characteristics” (page 8), (5) “are introduced using the
same connective procedures as may be used to apply the connective perimeter seams”
(page 10), and (6) provide “control over the deployment profile of the air bag cushion”
(page 11). These statements would reasonably convey to the artisan that the appellant
had possession at that time of an air bag assembly comprising expansion restraining
elements which remain operative upon full inflation of the air bag cushion without failing
as is now recited in claims 1, 11 and 12.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection of independent claims 1, 11 and 12, and dependent claims 2-10 and 13-20, as
being based on a specification which fails to comply with the written description
requirement.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007