Ex Parte Jaradi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 10, 201814319059 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/319,059 06/30/2014 113140 7590 09/12/2018 Bejin Bieneman PLC Ford Global Technologies, LLC 2000 Town Center Suite 800 Southfield, MI 48075 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dean M. J aradi 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 83450488(65080-1288) 8043 EXAMINER ENGLISH, JAMES A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/12/2018 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docket@b2iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DEAN M. JARAD! and MOHAMMED OMAR F ARUQUE Appeal 2016-008695 Application 14/319,059 1 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated July 23, 2015 ("Final Act."), and as further explained in the Advisory Action dated October 16, 2015, rejecting claims 1, 5-8, and 11-14. We have jurisdiction under 1 Appellant is the Applicant listed on the Application Data Sheet, Ford Global Technologies, LLC. See Application Data Sheet (filed June 30, 2014), at 4. The Application was assigned to Ford Global Technologies, LLC, according to assignments recorded with the Office on June 30, 2014. In the Appeal Brief, Ford Motor Company is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2016-008695 Application 14/319,059 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. BACKGROUND The disclosed subject matter relates to a side and seat-back airbag. Spec., Title. Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below, with emphasis added: 1. An airbag system, comprising: an airbag having a main panel and two side panels, each of the side panels arranged to extend substantially perpendicularly from the main panel when the airbag is inflated; and at least one inflator that is arranged to inflate all of the panels; wherein the main panel of the airbag is stitched to a back of the vehicle seat. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Dainese (US 2013/0093224 Al, published Apr. 18, 2013). 2. Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dainese and Lewis (US 6,142,508, issued Nov. 7, 2000). 2 Appeal 2016-008695 Application 14/319,059 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 - Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 14 Independent claims 1 and 8 recite a system in which "the main panel of the airbag is stitched to a back of the vehicle seat." See Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, at 2 (Amended Claims App.) (filed Apr. 7, 2016) ( emphasis added). In finding that Dainese discloses these limitations, the Examiner stated: "wherein the main panel (2c) of the airbag (2) is stitched ('laces'; paragraphs 70-71) to a back (4; figs. 4-5; paragraphs 65-71) of the vehicle seat (1). (Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 57-127.)." Final Act. 3; see also, e.g., Dainese, Figs. 1-5 (showing, among other aspects, rear portion 2c, inflatable member 2, and cover 4). Appellant argues that the Examiner "has gone well beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation of 'stitched' in maintaining its rejection" and also argues that "Dainese discloses an inflatable member that is not 'stitched' to a vehicle seat, but rather is connected via eyebolts and laces." Appeal Br. 5. For the reasons below, we determine that the Examiner has not adequately demonstrated that Dainese discloses the limitations at issue under the broadest reasonable interpretation of "stitched to." The Examiner discusses two alternative positions as to the word "stitch": (1) "[a] loop of thread or yam made with an implement" and (2) "suture." Ans. 6 ("In the instant case, using eye bolts and laces falls directly under the stitching definition (b) loop of thread or yam made with an implement; or ( d) suture."); see also Appeal Br. 6 (providing various definitions, including definition "b" and definition "d" from thefreedictionary.com). We address each of these positions in tum below. 3 Appeal 2016-008695 Application 14/319,059 Although the Examiner does not expressly propose a construction for the claim term at issue ("stitched to"), from the first position as to "stitch" discussed above, we understand the Examiner to implicitly propose construing "stitched to" as secured using a loop of thread or yam made with an implement. See Spec. ,r 8 ("A securing mechanism such as stitching 24 is generally used to secure the airbag 12 to the seat 14."). Even assuming this first proposed construction was correct, for the reasons below, we determine that the relied-upon aspects of Dainese do not provide adequate support for the Examiner's findings. As noted above, the Examiner identifies rear portion 2c in Dainese ( a portion of inflatable member 2) as the recited "main panel of the airbag" and identifies cover 4 as the "back of the vehicle seat." Final Act. 3. Applying this first proposed construction of "stitched to" in the context of Dainese, the limitations at issue would require rear portion 2c to be secured to cover 4 using a loop of thread or yam made with an implement. Paragraph 71, relied upon by the Examiner, discloses that "inflatable member 2 is at least partially fixed to the cover 4, eventually through said eye-bolts 45/laces."2 Paragraph 70 discloses the goal of "keep[ing] the inflatable member 2 in a stable and fixed position below the cover 4," but does not otherwise address the relationship between inflatable member 2 and cover 4. We determine that the relied-upon disclosures do not provide adequate description regarding the specific and relative configuration of the relevant structures----e.g., inflatable member 2, cover 4, eyebolts 45, and the 2 Throughout this Decision, we omit any bolding of reference numerals from prior art references. 4 Appeal 2016-008695 Application 14/319,059 laces-to assess, without resorting to speculation, whether or not Dainese discloses that rear portion 2c is "stitched to" cover 4 under the Examiner's first proposed construction. See Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont 'l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Anticipation requires that a single reference 'describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art."' ( quoting Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added))); see also In re Turlay, 49 CCPA 1288, 304 F.2d 893, 899 (1962) ("It is well established that an anticipation rejection cannot be predicated on an ambiguous reference."). We tum now to the Examiner's second position as to the word "stitch"-"suture." Ans. 6 ("In the instant case, using eye bolts and laces falls directly under the stitching definition (b) loop of thread or yam made with an implement; or (d) suture."). The Examiner states, "[f]urthermore, as 'suture' is defined as 'a uniting of parts' under Merriam-Webster.com, Dainese ... is clearly uniting the airbag with the vehicle seat." Id. at 6-7. Considering this discussion in view of the language of the limitations at issue, we understand the Examiner to implicitly propose construing "stitched to" as "united to." We agree with Appellant that this second proposed construction is unreasonably broad when reading the claim language at issue in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See Appeal Br. 5; In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The Specification indicates that "stitching" is just one way of securing (i.e., uniting) two structures together. See Spec. ,r 8 ("A securing mechanism such as stitching 24 is generally used to secure the airbag 12 to the seat 14." 5 Appeal 2016-008695 Application 14/319,059 ( emphasis added)). Thus, to construe "stitched to" to encompass all ways of uniting structures together would be unreasonably broad in light of the Specification here. See In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that the "broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification ... is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with the specification"' (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 8, and also do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 7 (which depend from claim 1) and claims 11, 13, and 14 (which depend from claim 8). Rejection 2 - Claims 6 and 12 Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and claim 12 depends from claim 8. The Examiner's added reliance on Lewis does not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection based on Dainese, discussed above, regarding claims 1 and 8 (see supra Rejection 1 ). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 12. DECISION We reverse the decision to reject claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l), and we reverse the decision to reject claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation