Kenyon & Kenyon wins reversal in Ex parte Kuttenberger

In Ex parte Kuttenberger, Kenyon & Kenyon obtained reversal on rejection of claims directed to
-- A device for being situated in a vehicle and for determining a relative speed between the vehicle and a crash object, comprising (...) --


The Examiner asserts that Eisele’s disclosure in paragraph [0029] that the impact velocity may be measured by the precrash sensor and that features that change with impact velocity are based on the first integral of the acceleration signal, which is the velocity signal, “implies that the velocity is updated or corrected by the impact sensor after contact.” Ans. 9- 10. However, it is not apparent, and the Examiner does not adequately, explain, why this is the case.

For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Eisele discloses a relative speed determining device comprising an arrangement for ascertaining the relative speed between the vehicle and a crash object based on a first signal of a pre- crash surround field sensor system and based on a second signal from a contact sensor system, “wherein the signal of the contact sensor system is used to correct the relative speed of the pre-crash surround field sensor system,” as called for in independent claim 15.