Appeal No. 2006-0844 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/118,027
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 4 to 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Vollimer. We initially note that the
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The examiner's findings in regard to the teachings of Bauer can be found on
page 2 to 3 of the non-final rejection mailed October 4, 2004. The examiner recognizes
that Bauer does not describe a pretensioner mounted on the lap belt anchor for applying
tension on the seatbelt during an emergency. The examiner relies on Vollimer for this
teaching and states:
Though Vollimer teaches a first pretensioner connected to the lap belt
anchor, as opposed to directly connected to or mounted on the lap belt
anchor, the first pretensioner performs the same function, namely to
pretension the outboard side of the lap belt, in it’s location adjacent to the
lap belt anchor. Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design
choice to directly connect the first pretensioner to or to mount the first
pretensioner on the lap belt anchor, since applicant has not disclosed that
the direct connection to the lap belt anchor solves any stated problem or is
for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform
equally well with the first pretensioner located adjacent to the lap belt
anchor [non-final rejection mailed October 4, 2004 pages 3 to 4].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007