Appeal No. 2006-0844 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/118,027
In regard to claims 4 to 6, the appellant argues that neither Otani nor Wier
discloses a load limiter positioned away from the retractor and anchor.
We do not agree because as we stated above, Wier discloses and suggests a
load limiter disposed on the buckle. As such, we will sustain the rejection as it is
directed to claim 4. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 5 and 6
as these claims stand or fall with claim 4 (brief at pages 7 to 8).
In regard to claim 7, the appellant argues that neither Otani nor Wier describes a
load limiter located at a position in which there is no pretensioner.
We do not find this argument persuasive because we agree with the examiner
that claim 7 does not recite that the load limiter is located at a position where there is no
pretensioner but rather that the load limiter is connected at a different one of the three
points of the seat belt apparatus than the points where a plurality of the pretensioners
are connected. Otani describes a plurality of pretensioners consisting of one
pretensioner located at the retractor and another located at the buckle (Figure 1). Wier
describes a force limiter or load limiter (paragraphs 0043 to 0047) located at the seat
anchor which is a point different from the retractor and buckle. Therefore, we will
sustain this rejection.
In summary:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007