Ex Parte Adamini et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 19, 2012

11523439 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 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. 11/523,439 09/18/2006 Chris A. Adamini 5702-01131 5734 7590 11/20/2012 L.C. Begin & Associates, PLLC 510 Highland Avenue PMB 403 Milford, MI 48381 EXAMINER JONES, CHRISTOPHER P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1776 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRIS A. ADAMINI and CHRISTOPHER T. SLEDZ ____________ Appeal 2011-009619 Application 11/523,439 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The named inventors (collectively “Appellant”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-26 directed to a wrappable filter layer useful in inflatable occupant restraint systems in motor vehicles. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A wrappable filter layer comprising: at least one region of a material substantially impermeable to a flow of gases therethrough; and Appeal 2011-009619 Application 11/523,439 2 at least one region of a gas-permeable material physically attached to the at least one region of substantially gas-impermeable material along an edge portion thereof such that the at least one region of gas-permeable material and the at least one region of gas- impermeable material form a single piece. The Examiner relies on the following evidence of unpatentability: Cuevas US 4,923,212 May 8, 1990 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cuevas. Ans. 3.1 Claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cuevas. Id. at 6. ISSUES The following dispositive issues arise: 1. Does the Examiner err in finding that Cuevas describes a “wrappable filter layer” comprising a region of substantially gas- impermeable material that is “physically attached to” a region of gas- permeable material so as to “form a single piece” as specified in claim 1? 2. Does the Examiner err in finding that Cuevas describes a “gas- impermeable region having a first side and a second side opposite the first side” as specified in claim 16? We answer these questions in the negative and AFFIRM. 1 We refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 3, 2011 (“Ans.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 23, 2010 (“App. Br.”), and the Reply Brief filed May 3, 2011 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2011-009619 Application 11/523,439 3 ANALYSIS Appellant separately argues claims 1, 16, and 24. App. Br. 10, 24, 26. Appellant also separately argues claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 as a group. App. Br. 26. Where the arguments raise essentially the same issues, it is appropriate to treat them together. Appellant’s arguments as to claim 24, as well as the arguments directed to claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12, are substantially the same as arguments directed to claim 1. Id. at 26-28. Thus, our analysis of claims 1 and 16 disposes of all issues raised by Appellant in this appeal. Figures 2 and 5 of Cuevas are reproduced below. Appeal 2011-009619 Application 11/523,439 4 Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cuevas’ object 24 represents “at least one region of a gas-permeable material” and object 26 represents “at least one region of a material substantially impermeable to a flow of gases therethrough.” Ans. 3 (citing Cuevas Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds that filter layer 20, which includes objects 24 and 26, is welded together to ensure a secure seal among the components; “therefore, objects 24 and 26 form a single piece” as specified in claim 1. Id. at 3-4 (citing Cuevas Fig. 2 and 8:21-28; 12:11-26). For the purposes of our discussion, it is helpful to keep in mind that objects 22 and 26 are substantially gas- impermeable frame member portions of the ring-shaped frame members 56 and 58 depicted in Figure 5. Object 24, by contrast, is a gas-permeable material that is “wound” around frame members 56 and 58. Cuevas 12:1-10. Appellant argues that “[o]bjects 24 and 26 . . . are not physically attached to each other so as to ‘[] form a single piece.’” App. Br. 22-23. It is unclear to us, and Appellant does not adequately explain, why the specified physical attachment is not met by the weld described in Cuevas. See Cuevas 12:1-26. Indeed, Cuevas describes a “weld [that] continues completely around both the top and bottom edges of filter assembly 20 to ensure a secure seal among the components,” including objects 24 and 26, and further describes that seal as sufficient “to prevent disassembly due to the tremendous pressures exerted during ignition of propellant composition 40.” Cuevas 12:21-26. In our view, objects 24 and 26 are “physically attached,” where they are welded together in a fashion that is secure enough to prevent separation during the pyrotechnic explosion that attends airbag deployment. Claim 1; Cuevas 2:43-3:2; 4:19-39; 12:1-26. Appeal 2011-009619 Application 11/523,439 5 Appellant points to no objective evidence that distinguishes Cuevas’ weld from the weld that is described in the Specification as a suitable means for physically attaching the two regions of material that form the “single piece” of claim 1. See Spec. 3:14-20 (“edge portions of the weld mesh are welded to corresponding edge portions of the fluid-impermeable metal sheets”). On this record, the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Cuevas describes a region of substantially gas-impermeable material 26 that is “physically attached to” a region of gas-permeable material 24 so as to “form a single piece” as specified in claim 1. Ans. 3-4, 8-9. The question remains whether Cuevas describes a filter layer that is “wrappable” as specified in claim 1. The Examiner finds that Cuevas’ “filter assembly is formed by being ‘wound’” around frame members 56 and 58. Ans. 4 (quoting Cuevas 12:1-5). Appellant counters that Cuevas’ assembly is “produced by snapping frame members 56 and 58 together and then winding the filtration layers around the connected frame members.” App. Br. 16. In Appellant’s view, where “[f]rame members 56 and 58 are stamped from metal into finished shapes as rigid rings,” the filter layer comprising Cuevas’ objects 24 and 26 is not “wrappable” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 14 (emphasis omitted); App. Br. 16. Appellant points to no disclosure in the Specification that defines “wrappable,” and it appears to us that the term requires no more than a filter layer that is “wrapped into a substantially cylindrical configuration” as specified in claim 6, which depends from claim 1. Appellant comes forward with no persuasive evidence or argument establishing that filter layer 20, which includes objects 24 and 26 and is formed in a cylindrical or “doughnut shaped arrangement,” (Cuevas 12:118 and Figures 6, 7), is structurally or Appeal 2011-009619 Application 11/523,439 6 functionally distinguishable from the filter layer of claim 6. On this record, a preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s view that “the filter layer of Cuevas is capable of being wrapped, and is in fact wrapped to form the structure presented in the drawings, and is thus ‘wrappable.’” Ans. 4, 8. Regarding claim 16, Appellant argues that frame member portions 22 and 26 “are portions of two different parts,” namely, frame members 56 and 58. App. Br. 25 (emphasis omitted); see Cuevas Fig. 5. Thus, in Appellant’s view, Cuevas’ filter assembly lacks a “gas-impermeable region having a first side and a second side opposite the first side” as specified in claim 16. App. Br. 25 (emphasis omitted). However, when frame members 56 and 58 are snapped together, frame member portions 22 and 26 become components of filter assembly 20, which is welded completely along the top and bottom edges to establish a seal secure enough to withstand a pyrotechnic explosion. See supra; Cuevas Fig. 2 and 12:1-26. On this record, we are not persuaded that, after snapping and welding, frame member portions 22 and 26 are “two different parts” in filter assembly 20. App. Br. 25. On the contrary, we see no structural or functional difference (and Appellant establishes none) between the apparatus depicted in Cuevas and the apparatus depicted in the Specification. Compare Cuevas Figs. 2, 3 to Spec. Figs. 1, 3. The evidence thus supports the Examiner’s view that frame member portions 22 and 26 represent a “gas- impermeable region having a first side and a second side opposite the first side” within the meaning of claim 16. Ans. 5. Appeal 2011-009619 Application 11/523,439 7 CONCLUSION We have considered Appellant’s other arguments but find them unpersuasive for the reasons stated in the Answer. We thus affirm the rejections of claims 1-26. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. AFFIRMED sld