Appeal 2006-2983
Application 10/733,957
the claims are not entitled to the benefit of Breed’s filing date under 35 USC § 120.
More particularly, the issue is whether the disclosure of Breed provides adequate
support for the claims under 35 USC § 112, first paragraph.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A preponderance of the evidence establishes the following facts:
The control module of the claims controls deployment of an occupant
restraint device, such as an airbag, and the control module also receives a signal
indicating a measured pressure in a chamber of a seat bladder. The claims do not
require that the control module control deployment of the airbag in connection
with, or in response to, the received signal of the measured pressure. Rather, the
independent claims 60, 62, and 65 require only that a single control module both
control deployment of the occupant restraint device and receive a signal of the
measured pressure. Claims 64 and 66 further require that the occupant restraint
device is an airbag. Claims 67 and 68 further require that the control module
control at least one other vehicular system, subsystem, or component, such as a
pressure control device to control pressure in the chamber.
Breed describes a vehicle seat with a seat portion. (Breed, Figure 1). Breed
describes that the seat of the invention includes a control module (150), as shown,
for example, in Figures 1, 5, and 9 (Breed, col. 5, l. 35).
Breed describes, referring to Figure 1, that the seat of the invention has a
height sensor comprised of transmitter (120) and a receiver (121) for measuring the
height of the occupant. (Breed, col. 5, ll. 32-33). The control module (150)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013