Ex Parte Jaradi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

14319059 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

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