Appeal No. 2006-0599
Application 10/076,270
the determination that the examiner’s above-noted rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will
not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
The examiner’s basic position concerning the rejection of claims 11 and 14 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitzkus in view of Wier is set forth on
pages 3 and 4 of the answer. Essentially, the examiner points out that Mitzkus discloses a
safety belt tensioner drive unit (Figs. 1-4) including a drive shaft (19) coupled to a belt
winding reel (12), a drive chamber formed by two connected plates (51, 52) which extend
parallel to one another, drive bands (21) having ends fastened to the drive shaft and wound
on the drive shaft, and a gas generator (at 16) responsive to an acceleration sensor (43),
which upon actuation exposes the drive chamber and drive bands (21) to pressurized gas
that cause the drive bands to unwind and drive the drive shaft in such a manner as to
tension the safety belt (13). The examiner recognizes that the belt tensioner of Mitzkus does
not include or disclose a coating material on the facing sides of the plates as required in the
claims on appeal.
The examiner looks to Wier (col. 6, lines 1-6) for a teaching of a coating (e.g., wax) used
on a cable traction transfer means (11) of a safety belt tensioner unit to enhance sealing
between the cable and an adjacent surface of a damping/sealing piston (37) through which
the cable passes. In the examiner’s view, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to provide Mitzkus with a coating material such
as wax between the plates and the drive bands as taught by Wier to enhance gas retention
in the drive chamber.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007