Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262
1) or “at least one independent rigidity enhancing member”
(claim 7). (Answer, page 3). As the Examiner states, Otsuka
teaches an airbag cover having a central “breakage part” (i.e.,
the here claimed “tear line”) 16a defined by “groove wall
surface” 19 and “breakage phase” 18 with “ribs” (i.e., the here
claimed “ridges”) 26 extending across the central “breakage
part.” (Answer, page 3). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been prima facie obvious to have modified Yokota’s airbag
cover with Otsuka’s rigidity enhancing “ribs” (i.e., “ridges”)
across the “breakage part” (i.e., “tear line”) because this
modification would increase the “rigidity of the cover and
prevents the cover from deforming when an occupant presses on
the cover.” (Answer, page 3). Moreover, the Examiner indicates
that Otsuka teaches that conventional airbag covers suffer from
the problem of insufficient rigidity when pushed on by a user,
and that providing the cover with the “ribs” (i.e., ridges) 26
solves this problem by increasing the rigidity of the cover.
(Answer, pages 4-5).
Appellants argue that the Examiner bases his § 103(a)
rejection upon impermissible hindsight, rather than the
teachings of the prior art. (Brief, page 11). However, as the
Examiner contends, Otsuka provides express motivation for the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007