Appeal No. 2006-0599
Application 10/076,270
Like appellants (brief, pages 7-11 and reply brief), we find no suggestion or motivation
supporting the examiner’s proposed combination of Mitzkus and Wier. Mitzkus describes an
arrangement wherein the width of the draw/drive belts (21) is “so large that they sealingly
and slidingly contacts [sic] the end walls 51, 52 and thus subdivide the band running
chambers 23 into two partial chambers 23’, 23” sealed relative to one another via the draw
bands 21” (col.7, lines 8-12). There is no indication in Mitzkus of any problem associated
with the seal between the draw/drive belts (21) and the walls (51, 52) of the running
chambers (23). To the contrary, Mitzkus specifically provides vent openings (37) to prevent
an excessive pressure build up in the partial chambers (23”) on triggering of the additional
drive via the pressure source (16), thereby evidencing that the seals of the belts (21) at the
walls (51, 52) are more than adequate and do not need to be improved. See column 7, lines
23-27 of Mitzkus.
The belt tensioner of Wier differs markedly from that of Mitzkus. Wier’s tensioner uses an
axially movable traction transfer cable (11) to transfer a tensioning force to the safety belt
upon actuation of the compressed gas source (17). The cable (11) passes through a
deformable damping piston (37) situated at one end of piston/cylinder unit (3). As noted by
appellants in their reply brief, Wier’s teaching is limited to coating the traction cable (11) with
wax or silicon to enhance its sealing ability with the sleeve-shaped section (43) of the
damping piston (37) because the traction cable “does not have a smooth external surface”
(col. 6, lines 1-6). No such problem is present in Mitzkus.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007