Appeal No. 2006-0844 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/118,027
does not meet the examiner's initial burden unless the examiner sets forth convincing
reasoning and/or evidence that such design choice would have been well known in the
art, i.e., a showing that it was well known in the art to have connected a first
pretensioner to the lap belt anchor. The examiner has not presented any such showing
on this record.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, and 4 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Otani in view of Wier. The examiner's findings in
regard to the Otani reference can be found at page 4 of the non-final rejection mailed
October 4, 2004. The examiner recognizes that Otani does not disclose a load limiter
connected to any of the three points (shoulder, anchor, and buckle) of the seatbelt. The
examiner relies on Wier, claim 4, for teaching a load limiter connected to a buckle.
The appellant argues that Wier does not describe a load limiter disposed at the
buckle.
We agree with the examiner that claim 3 of Wier recites a retractor tensioner and
a buckle tensioner and claim 4, which is dependent on claim 3, recites that at least one
of the tensioner comprises a force limiter. As such, claim 4 of Wier discloses that either
the retractor tensioner or the buckle tensioner may comprise a force limiter. Therefore,
Wier discloses and suggests that a force limiter or load limiter can be disposed on the
buckle. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007