Appeal No. 2006-0022 Παγε 17
Application No. 09/810,943
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 52
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 53
We sustain the rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue (brief, p. 20) that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
the step of controlling a safety restraint device based on the seat occupant weight and
center of gravity. We do not agree for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim
52.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 53
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims 61 and 69
We sustain the rejection of claims 61 and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue (brief, pp. 21-22) that the applied prior art does not teach or
suggest the controller calculating weight of an occupant by sampling the response of
each of the sensors to a weight applied to the vehicle seat structure. We do not agree.
In our view, when Research Disclosure is modified in the manner set forth above with
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007