Appeal 2006-2983
Application 10/733,957
providing a signal based on the measured pressure in the
chamber to a control module; and
controlling deployment of the occupant restraint device by
means of the control module.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Fortune US 6,101,436 Aug. 08, 2000
The Examiner rejected claims 60, 62, and 64-68 under 35 USC § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Fortune.
The Appellants rely upon the following as evidence of patentability:
Breed US 5,822,707 Oct. 13, 1998
ISSUE
The Appellants contend that rejected claims 60, 62, and 64-68 are entitled to
the benefit, under 35 USC § 120, of the filing date of Breed so as to remove
Fortune as prior art to the rejected claims (Brief 4). The Examiner contends that
the rejected claims are not entitled to the benefit of Breed’s filing date, because
Breed does not fully support the subject matter of independent claims 60, 62, and
65 in the manner provided by 35 USC § 112, first paragraph (Answer 4-5). The
issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown that Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 60, 62, and 64-68 under 35 USC § 102(b) based on a finding that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013