Appeal No. 2006-0022 Παγε 18
Application No. 09/810,943
respect to claim 36, the controller must inherently calculate the weight of an occupant
by sampling the response of each of the sensors to a weight applied to the vehicle seat
structure. In addition, the above-noted teachings of Mazur would have made it obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have
further modified Research Disclosure so that the controller calculates the weight of an
occupant by sampling the response of each of the sensors to a weight applied to the
vehicle seat structure.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 61
and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims 62, 64 and 70
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 62, 64 and 70.
Appellants argue (brief, pp. 22-23) that the applied prior art does not teach or
suggest a controller which samples the sensors approximately every thirty milliseconds.
We agree. The examiner's reliance (answer, p. 5) on Mazur as suggesting this
limitation is misplaced. The sample rates taught by Mazur in column 7 are not sample
rates for the weight sensor 56 but sample rates for other sensors. Mazur teaches that
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007