Ex Parte 6,712,387 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2012

90011452 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90/011,452 01/21/2011 6,712,387 ATI-207REEX3 5018
22846 7590 11/29/2012
BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ
8170 McCormick Boulevard, Suite 223
Skokie, IL 60076-2914
EXAMINER
FETSUGA, ROBERT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.1
Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent US 6,712,387 C12
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ and
DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 (2002)
from a Final Rejection of claims 1-53, claims 39-53 having been added

1 Automotive Technologies International, Inc. is the real party in interest
(Appeal Brief (hereinafter "App. Br.") 3).
2 Issued March 30, 2004 to Breed et al. (hereinafter "'387 patent"). The '387
patent expired March 30, 2012 for failure to pay the required maintenance
fee.
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

2
during the reexamination proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134(b) and 306 (2002).
The '387 patent was the subject of Reexamination Control 90/008,352
and 90/010,035 which resulted in a decision by the Board on July 21, 2010
(Appeal 2010-003519) and issuance of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
on November 9, 2010. The '387 patent is presently involved in the
following infringement litigation proceedings (App. Br. 4):
1. Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. American
Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 06-187-GMS (D. Del.); and
2. Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor
America, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 06-391-GMS (D. Del.).
In addition to the Appeal Brief, the Patent Owner relies on the
declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of co-inventor Mr. David Breed as well
as a Reply Brief.
We Affirm-In-Part.

INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to an arrangement and method for
controlling deployment of a side airbag in a vehicle where the deployment is
suppressed if the occupant in a seat has characteristics of a child and the
head of the child is against the airbag module.
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

3
Representative independent claims 1 and 16 read as follows (App. Br.
25, Claims App'x., emphasis added):
1. An arrangement for controlling deployment of a side
airbag from an airbag module on a side of the vehicle to protect
an occupant in a seat of a vehicle in a crash when the occupant
is present, comprising
determining means for identifying the occupant to
determine whether the occupant has characteristics of a child
and for determining the position of the occupant relative to the
airbag module, said determining means determining based on
the identification of the occupant as having characteristics of a
child and the position of the occupant relative to the airbag
module whether the head of the child is against the airbag
module, and
a control circuit coupled to said determining means for
controlling deployment of the side airbag based on the
determined position of the occupant relative to the airbag
module,
said determining means comprising at least one receiver
adapted to receive waves from a space above a seat portion of
the seat and a processor coupled to said at least one receiver for
generating a signal representative of the position of the
occupant relative to the airbag module based on the waves
received by said at least one receiver, said at least one receiver
being capable of receiving electromagnetic waves,
said control circuit being arranged to suppress
deployment of the side airbag when the occupant is determined
to have characteristics of a child by said determining means
and the head of the child is determined to be against the airbag
module by said determining means.

16. A method for controlling deployment of a side airbag
from an airbag module on a side of a vehicle to protect an
occupant in a seat of a vehicle in a crash when the occupant is
present, comprising the steps of:
determining whether the occupant has characteristics of
a child,
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

4
determining the position of the occupant relative to the
airbag module, and
controlling deployment of the side airbag based on the
determined position of the occupant relative to the airbag
module and the determination of whether the occupant has
characteristics of a child,
the step of determining the position of the occupant
comprising the steps of:
transmitting waves into the space above the seat
portion of the seat;
receiving waves from a space above a seat portion
of the seat;
generating a signal representative of the position of
the occupant based on the received waves, and
determining the position of the head of the
occupant,
the step of controlling deployment of the side airbag
comprising suppressing deployment of the side airbag when the
occupant has characteristics of a child and the head of the child
is against the airbag module.

PRIOR ART
White et al. US 5,071,160 Dec. 10, 1991
Spies DE 40 23 109 Jan. 23, 1992
(citations to English translation of record)
Miyagawa JP 5-116589 May 14, 1993
(citations to English translation of record)
Breed et al., Vehicle Occupant Position Sensing, SAE Paper No. 940527
(1994) (hereinafter "SAE Paper")

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-12, 15 and 29-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of White, SAE Paper and Miyagawa.
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

5
2. Claims 16-27 and 35-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of White, SAE Paper, Miyagawa and
Spies.

ISSUE
The issue raised in the appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
rejecting the various claims as obvious over the applied prior art of record.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. A. White states that "[i]t is well known that the size and relative
position of each passenger within a motor vehicle at the instant preceding a
collision or marked vehicle deceleration is of critical importance to the
effectiveness of safety restraints such as air bags in preventing serious
injury." (Col. 1, ll. 37-41).
B. White discloses a passenger out-of-position sensor including
ultrasonic acoustic sensors for sensing relative position of the passenger
within a vehicle and using the information to control operation of a front
airbag (Title; Abst.).
C. White states that prior art systems fail to "adjust safety restraint
response to account for passenger size or position; and there is no
accommodation of situations such as that of the 'standing child', where
operation of the restraint is preferably inhibited." (Col. 2, ll. 29-33; see also
col. 1, 63-col. 2, l. 2).
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

6
D. White specifically teaches using the sensed relative position of
the passenger to inhibit operation of the restraint "if the likely injury
attendant to operation of the restraint is greater than the likely injury
attendant to unimpeded passenger contact with fixed interior structure of the
vehicle, given the position assumed by the passenger therein." (Col. 3, ll. 2-
7; see also col. 1, ll. 23-27; col. 1, l. 63-col. 2, l. 2; col. 3, ll. 45-52).
E. White states "the instant control circuit 12 uses error correction
methods such as a plurality of each type of sensors 22, 24, 26, 32 for each
assigned monitoring task to prevent falsing" and that error correction
subroutines are known in the art (col. 5, ll. 50-61).

2. A. SAE Paper describes using an occupant position sensing system
for determining the position and velocity of the occupant, and for pattern
recognition, in deployment of an airbag. (Pg. 2, col. 2, ¶ 5; pg. 3, col. 1, ¶ 6,
col. 2, ¶ 5).
B. SAE Paper specifically states that the system "disables
deployment of the airbag if the occupant is positioned so that he is likely to
be injured by the deploying airbag." (Pg. 2, col. 2, ¶ 3; see also ¶ 4).
C. SAE Paper also teaches that small occupants are exposed to a
greater risk of interacting with a deploying airbag and specifically states that
"if an occupant is positioned against the airbag when it deploys, he or she
can be seriously injured or killed by the deployment itself. This can happen
with small people who naturally sit close to the steering wheel . . . ." (Pg. 3,
col. 1, ¶ 2).
D. In its Conclusion, SAE Paper further states:
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

7
With the expected installation of side impact airbags,
which will be initially stored in the doors of the vehicle, the
potential for deployment induced injuries will increase
significantly. The head of a small child, for example, may be
adjacent to the deployment door of such an airbag especially if
he is sleeping against the door. Therefore the [Child Seat and
Occupant Presence Detectors] will eventually be needed for
side impact airbags.
(Pg. 5, col. 1, ¶ 4, emphasis added).
E. SAE Paper specifically states
In each of the examples above, the position and velocity
of the occupant is used to prevent or control the inflation of the
airbag . . . . In these cases rather than the determination of the
position of the occupant, the pattern of a rear facing child seat
or of an occupant must be determined and differentiated from
that of a forward facing child seat, a box or a bag of groceries.
Thus two different technologies are required for the OPS,
position and velocity determination and pattern recognition.
(Pg. 2, col. 2, ¶ 5, emphasis added).
F. SAE Paper further specifically states "[s]everal technologies
exist which will permit a measurement to be made of the position and
velocity of the occupant. These include laser optics, passive infrared,
ultrasonics, optical focusing and radar." (Pg. 3, col. 1, ¶ 2).
G. SAE Paper also states that with respect to child seat detection
and pattern recognition, "[t]his becomes a problem of pattern recognition
where the pattern of all 'approved' child seats must be distinguished from an
occupant." (Pg. 3, col. 2, ¶ 6).
3. A. Miyagawa discloses that side airbags mounted inside the door
trim of the side door were known (¶ [0004]).
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

8
B. Miyagawa also discloses a passenger contact detector 19 which
detects contact of a part of the body of the passenger, and delaying inflation
of an inflator based on the detected contact (¶¶ [0007], [0011]).
C. Miyagawa further discloses that the contact detector 19 can
detect a child passenger who places his/her hands on the trim cover of the
door trim (¶ [0012]; see also Figs. 1-3).

4. A. Spies describes a passenger safety system for vehicles with
sensors 15' and 16' which measure position of the passenger or his/her parts,
including the passenger's head, and prevents activation of the restraint
system if the position of the seat is not ideal (Pg. 1, ll. 3-7, 40-43; pg. 2, ll.
1-9; pg. 3, ll. 20-23; pg. 3, l. 43-pg. 4, l. 1; pg. 5, ll. 12-17; Fig. 1).
B. Spies also teaches that vehicle safety systems can include
"inflatable airbags from the direction of the door, or airbags moving angular
towards the head and headrest of the seat from the vehicle roof 6." (Pg. 3, ll.
10-13). Thus, Spies teaches the use of side airbags.
C. Spies states that "sensors (15' through 18'), such as runtime
light and sound sensors, can carry out a diverse optical geometric distance
measurement in one, two or three axis, or more." (Pg. 3, ll. 26-28). A
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Spies as disclosing
ultrasonic sensors.
D. Spies specifically states that "[i]n this way, especially the head,
if desired even another body part, can be sensed in its respective seating
position according to the run time method - as is generally known - with the
sensors 15[sic, 15'] and 16' attached to the measuring beams 15, and 16."
(Pg. 3, ll. 20-24).
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

9
E. Spies also states that "[b]ecause of the various measuring
beams, it is easy to register size and direction of a movement of the head or
acceleration of the head." (Pg. 4, ll. 6-7).
F. Spies further states that "[i]f, for instance, a child stands
(illegally) directly in front of a front-seat passenger inflator/generator, the
airbag would inflate too soon." (Pg. 5, ll. 19-20).

5. Declaration of co-inventor Mr. Breed states the following:
A. "It cannot be understated that recognition of this occupancy
state and suppressing airbag deployment when it is present represents, in my
opinion, a breakthrough in side airbag deployment control which is not
appreciated by any of the cited prior art references." (¶ 13).
B. "Although White et al. discloses determining size and
position of an occupant, and SAE 940527 discloses airbag deployment
control for various occupancy states, neither controls airbag
deployment, nor specifically suppresses airbag deployment, after
determining that an occupant has characteristics of a child and the
occupant position is with his or her head air bag against the airbag
module. This combination of features is, in my opinion, novel and
unobvious." (¶ 18).
6. A. The Specification of the '387 patent states
"'Pattern recognition' as used herein will mean any system
which processes a signal that is generated by an object, or is modified
by interacting with an object, in order to determine which one of a set
of classes that the object belongs to. Such a system might determine
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

10
only that the object is or is not a member of one specified class, or it
might attempt to assign the object to one of a larger set of specified
classes, or find that it is not a member of any of the classes in the set.
The signals processed are generally electrical signals coming from
transducers which are sensitive to either acoustic or electromagnetic
radiation and if electromagnetic, they can be either visible light,
infrared, ultraviolet, radar or other part of the electromagnetic
spectrum." (Col. 3, ll. 45-58).
B. The Specification of the '387 patent also states that
"implementation can be carried out by those skilled in the art of pattern
recognition." (Col. 12, ll. 52-54).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).the
Supreme Court explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of
it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond
his or her skill.
The Court also stated that the obviousness analysis "need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR 550 U.S. at 418.
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

11
However, in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner bears
the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by the Patent Owner have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which the Patent Owner could have
made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii); In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Claims 1-12, 15 and 29-34
The Examiner rejects these claims as obvious over the combination of
White, SAE Paper and Miyagawa. The Examiner relies on White for
teaching an airbag control circuit that inhibits airbag deployment "to reduce
potential injury to an out-of-position occupant," and "recognizes particular
safety concerns associated with an out-of-position child." (Ans. 4). The
Examiner concedes that White does not disclose "controlling airbag
deployment based upon contact of a child's head with a side airbag module."
(Ans. 5). However, the Examiner relies on Miyagawa for controlling side
airbag deployment based on contact of a child's body part with the side
airbag module, and also relies on SAE Paper for recognizing safety concerns
associated with an out-of-position small child occupant during deployment
of airbags and side airbags, and in particular, if the child's head is against the
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

12
side airbag. (Ans. 6, 13-15, 17-18). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious in view of the prior art to control side airbag deployment
in accordance with the claims in order to enhance safety (Ans. 6, 10).
The Patent Owner argues that the prior art "lack a disclosure, teaching
and suggestion of structure that determines that an occupant has the
characteristics of a child and that the head of the child is against an airbag
module including a side airbag and when this determination is made,
structure that suppresses deployment of the side airbag." (App. Br. 14). In
particular, the Patent Owner argues that White fails to mention a side airbag
or possibility of injuries arising therefrom if the occupant is out of position.
(App. Br. 15). The Patent Owner also argues that Miyagawa merely
"adjust[s] deployment of a side airbag when a non-specific part of a body of
passenger" is in contact with a contact detector, and "does not teach or
suggest determining that the object has the characteristics of a child
occupant" and that the child's head is against the airbag module. (App. Br.
15-16; see also Reply Br. 1-2). The Patent Owner further asserts that SAE
Paper "also does not disclose identifying an occupancy state with both a
particular size occupant and position of a particular part of the occupant."
(App. Br. 17).
We agree with the Examiner that the rejected claims are obvious in
view of the cited prior art. As the Examiner explained (Ans. 17), the Patent
Owner's arguments are unpersuasive because they do not take into account
what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

13
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.").
White discloses a system with a sensor that senses when a passenger
is out of position with respect to an airbag, and describes using this sensed
position to inhibit operation of the airbag if greater injury is determined to be
likely (FF 1A, 1B, 1D). As the Examiner notes, White also recognizes
safety concerns associated with an out-of-position child (FF 1C). While
White is specifically directed to front airbags instead of a side airbag,
Miyagawa disclose airbag control systems and teach the desirability of
controlling deployment of a side airbag based on the position of the
occupant including children (FF 3A, 3B). SAE Paper further recognizes the
desirability of protecting small occupants including children from possible
dangerous deployment of a side airbag and suggests protection of a child's
head from side airbag deployment such as when the child is sleeping against
the door (FF 2A-2D). Thus, the rejected claims are mere predictable
variations using known techniques of the prior art and would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
The Patent Owner further argues that the claims require performance
of a specific "occupancy state determination" and not merely the capability
of making this determination so that even if the prior art structures could
perform the same functions, the claims are still patentable since the
occupancy state determination is not actually made in the prior art. (App.
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

14
Br. 18). However, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 15), the SAE Paper
specifically states that the pattern of an occupant must be determined and
differentiated from that of a forward facing child seat, a box or a bag of
groceries (FF 2E) thereby disclosing not only the determination of whether
the seat is occupied, but whether the seat is occupied with an occupant or
another object.
Whereas, the Patent Owner also argues that the rejected claims require
identifying that the occupant has "characteristics of a child" and that the
child's head is positioned on the side airbag module (see Reply Br. 1), we
observe that the SAE Paper discloses, or at least suggests such operation. In
particular, SAE Paper teaches the consideration of size of the occupant in
operation of the sensing system when discussing "small occupants" (FF 2C).
We observe that a child is a small occupant and a small occupant has
"characteristics of a child" in terms of size, weight, etc. We are not directed
to persuasive evidence establishing that there is any material distinction
between a child and a small occupant, or that injury to small occupants by
side airbag materially differs from those to a child. Furthermore, SAE Paper
also specifically teaches the potential for injury to a child stemming from
deployment of a side airbag when the child's head is against the door (FF
2D). Thus, to any extent that SAE Paper's disclosure with respect to a
"small occupant" does not explicitly disclose identification of the occupant
as having "characteristics of a child," such identification would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Patent Owner has also not
presented persuasive evidence that the Examiner's suggested combination of
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

15
the prior art systems would have been beyond the skills of one of ordinary
skill in the art.
The Patent Owner further asserts that the Examiner fails to appreciate
the criticality of the situation "wherein an occupant has the characteristics of
a child and has his or her head against an airbag module." (App. Br. 17; see
also Reply Br. 2). We disagree and find the desirability and criticality of
protecting injury to small occupants and children in particular, from head
injury by a deploying airbag is more than adequately established by the prior
art of record (FF 1B, 2C, 2D, 3C, 4C). Whereas, the Patent Owner relies on
the declaration of co-inventor Mr. Breed which asserts that the prior art does
not "disclose" airbag deployment control after determining that the occupant
is a child in a specific position and that such operation is novel and
unobvious (FF 5A, 5B), we again observe that the present rejection is that of
obviousness, and the Patent Owner fails to consider the collective teachings
of the prior art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; KSR, 550 U.S. 417-18.
Hence, for the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in concluding that the rejected claims are obvious.

Claims 16-27 and 35-53
The Examiner rejects these claims as obvious over the combination of
White, SAE Paper, Miyagawa and Spies (Ans. 8-11, 20-23). The Examiner
relies on Spies for specifically disclosing a passenger safety system which
senses the position of the head of the occupant (Ans. 8-9; see also FF 4A-
4C).
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

16
The Patent Owner's initial arguments with respect to this rejection
(App. Br. 20-22) are substantially similar to those discussed supra. The
Patent Owner also argues that Spies does not overcome the deficiencies of
White, SAE Paper and Miyagawa because it also "does not disclose
determining whether an occupant has characteristics of a child and
suppressing deployment of the side airbag when the occupant is determined .
. . to be against the airbag module." (App. Br. 21). However, the Patent
Owner again fails to take into account the collective teachings of the prior
art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, and we find the
Patent Owner's arguments unpersuasive for substantially the same reasons
already discussed.

Claims 41, 44, 46, 49 and 52
The Patent Owner further submits separate arguments in support of
patentability with respect to these claims (App. Br. 22). Claims 41 and 44
recite that the processor "is arranged to apply a pattern recognition technique
in order to determine whether the head of the child is against the airbag
module based on the waves received by said plurality of receivers and the
waves received by said at least one receiver." Claims 46, 49 and 52 requires
"processing the waves using a pattern recognition system to output a
determination of whether the head of the occupant is against the airbag
module."
The Examiner finds that "pattern recognition" is broadly defined in
the Specification of the '387 as a general description of any signal processing
system capable of classifying objects or humans, that such a signal
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

17
processing system is represented by various prior art disclosures, and the
Specification specifically states that the "implementation can be carried out
by those skilled in the art of pattern recognition." (Ans. 24; FF 6A, 6B).
The Examiner asserts that White, SAE Paper and Spies "each describe
pattern recognition systems which are at least equivalent to the claimed
pattern recognition software." (Ans. 24, 25).
The Patent Owner argues that the prior art fails to disclose using
pattern recognition to convert the data from the received waves into a
determination about position of the head of the occupant relative to the
airbag module. (App. Br. 22). In this regard, the Patent Owner asserts that
whereas SAE Paper mentions use of pattern recognition for occupant
classification or identification, "there is no nexus between pattern
recognition and position." (App. Br. 23).
The Examiner has not set forth an adequate prima facie case of
obviousness. The evidence of record establishes that pattern recognition was
a known technology (FF 2E, 2G). In addition, while the Examiner is correct
in noting that "pattern recognition" is defined broadly in the Specification of
the '387 (FF 6A, 6B), it is not evident how White's disclosure of using
known "error correction subroutines" for processing the signals from sensors
(FF 1E) satisfies the recited limitation requiring use of pattern recognition to
process the waves as asserted by the Examiner. (Ans. 24-25). Similarly,
with respect to Spies, it is not evident how performing analysis of measuring
beams using "run time method" (FF 4D) satisfies the recited limitation as
also asserted by the Examiner. (Ans. 25). In our view, there is inadequate
evidentiary basis to support the Examiner's assertion that prior art error
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

18
correction and run time method can be reasonably be encompassed by
pattern recognition.
Furthermore, whereas the SAE Paper does disclose the use of pattern
recognition, the Examiner has not adequately addressed the Patent Owner's
argument that the SAE Paper does not use pattern recognition for position,
but rather, uses it for occupant classification or identification. In this regard,
the Examiner has not articulated a rational reason as to why one of ordinary
skill in the art would utilize pattern recognition to determine whether the
head of a child is against the airbag module. To be clear, as noted by the
Examiner (Ans. 22) and discussed supra, the prior art of record clearly
establishes that it is known to determine the position of an occupant's head
using sensors such as ultrasonic sensors (FF 4C-4E). However, the claims at
issue require use of pattern recognition which is used to determine the class
to which an object belongs as defined in the Specification of the '387 patent
(FF 6A), to determine the position of a child's head as recited in the claims.
Hence, in view of the above, whereas the Examiner's rejection of
claims 16-27, 35-40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 53 is affirmed, we
reverse the rejection with respect to claims 41, 44, 46, 49 and 52.

ORDERS
1. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12, 15 and 29-34 as
unpatentable over the combination of White, SAE Paper and Miyagawa is
AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2012-008490
Reexamination Control 90/011,452
Patent 6,712,387

19
2. The Examiner's rejection of claims 16-27, 35-40, 42, 43, 45, 47,
48, 50, 51 and 53 as unpatentable over the combination of White, SAE
Paper, Miyagawa and Spies is AFFIRMED.
3. The Examiner's rejection of claims 41, 44, 46, 49 and 52 as
unpatentable over the combination of White, SAE Paper, Miyagawa and
Spies is REVERSED.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
rvb

PATENT OWNER:

BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ.
8170 MCCORMICK BOULEVARD, SUITE 223
SKOKIE, IL 60076-2914

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610