Appeal No. 2006-0022 Παγε 16
Application No. 09/810,943
of the infant and an infant safety seat is useful as an indicator of occupant size. From
these teachings we conclude that it would have been further obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to not deploy the
modified Research Disclosure safety restraint device if seat occupant weight is below a
predetermined weight.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 48
and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 52
We sustain the rejection of claim 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue (brief, pp. 19-20) that the applied prior art does not teach or
suggest the step of determining a center of gravity of the seat occupant from the
signals. We do not agree. Clearly, such is taught when Research Disclosure is
modified in the manner set forth above with respect to claim 36. In that regard,
Research Disclosure teaches that the load cell outputs can be used to calculate the
center of mass for the occupant of the seat, which information is useful for determining
the position of the occupant on the seat.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007