Ex Parte Koehler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 2012

10583055 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 10/583,055 05/08/2007 Armin Koehler 10191/4095 8814 26646 7590 11/16/2012 KENYON & KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER ALGAHAIM, HELAL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/16/2012 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 ARMIN KOEHLER, SABINE BRANDENBURGER, and HERMANN SCHULLER ____________________ Appeal 2010-010722 Application 10/583,055 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: LINDA E. HORNER, SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010722 Application 10/583,055 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter is directed to methods for activating a personal protection device, such as an airbag, belt tensioner, or rollover bar. Spec. 1. Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 11. A method for activating at least one personal protection device as a function of at least one signal derived from at least one acceleration sensor, the method comprising: using a forward displacement as the at least one signal; comparing the at least one signal to at least one threshold value surface, which is set as a function of a velocity decrease and a deceleration; and activating the personal protection device as a function of the comparison. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Mattes Andres Foo Yeh US 5,014,810 US 6,236,922 B1 US 6,459,366 B1 US 6,549,836 B1 May 14, 1991 May 22, 2001 Oct. 1, 2002 Apr. 15, 2003 Fischer US 2003/0197356 A1 Oct. 23, 2003 Appeal 2010-010722 Application 10/583,055 3 REJECTIONS Appellants seek our review of the following rejections: Claims 11, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andres and Mattes. Ans. 3. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andres, Mattes, Foo, and Fischer. Ans. 4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andres, Mattes, and Yeh. Ans. 5. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andres, Mattes, Foo, and Fischer. Ans. 6. Claims 21-30 are rejected “using the same prior arts and same rationales as claims 12-20.” Ans. 7. ANALYSIS The Examiner found that Andres discloses all limitations of claim 11 except “activating the personal protection device as a function of the comparison [of the forward displacement to the at least one threshold value surface],” but that Mattes discloses this limitation, and it would have been obvious to incorporate Mattes’s teaching into Andres “to activate the passenger restraint more accurately.” Ans. 3-4. In particular, the Examiner found that Andres discloses “comparing the [forward displacement] to at least one threshold value surface, which is set as a function of a velocity decrease and a deceleration,” with reference to Andres’s Figures 4 and 5, and column 3, lines 4-20 and column 5, lines 1-25. Ans. 3. Among other things, Appellants argue that Andres merely discloses comparing the displacement of the vehicle occupant to “a certain Appeal 2010-010722 Application 10/583,055 4 displacement threshold” and that Andres fails to disclose a comparison to the claimed “threshold value surface, which is set as a function of a velocity decrease and a deceleration.” App. Br. 9-10. In response, the Examiner observes: Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Claim 1 recites the following terms “a forward displacement, velocity and deceleration”. The claim fails to specify if the forward displacement correspond to a passenger displacement, vehicle displacement or any other object displacement. Also, it’s not clear how velocity decrease is different than deceleration. Acceleration is the rate change of velocity. In addition, the claim fails to specify if the terms velocity decrease and deceleration correspond to the vehicle itself or any other object. Andres deploys airbag by detecting the velocity, deceleration and occupant displacement. Therefore, prior arts cited disclose the claims limitations as presently written (at least see Andres col. 9 [sic 3], lines 4-15; col. 4 lines 58-67 - col. 5 lines 1-6. Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted). In reply, Appellants argue that the Examiner has “not even asserted that the prior art reference(s) discloses or suggests all of the features of claim 11. Specifically, no mention is made of any comparison as provided for in the context of the presently claimed subject matter.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence of record that Andres discloses “at least one threshold value surface, which is set as a function of a velocity decrease and a deceleration.” Andres appears to be entirely silent as to how the displacement threshold is set beyond describing it as “certain” (col. 3, ll. 14- 15). The Examiner correctly notes that “Andres deploys airbag by detecting the velocity, deceleration and occupant displacement,” and it well may be Appeal 2010-010722 Application 10/583,055 5 true that certain other thresholds in Andres are set as a function of velocity decrease and deceleration. But Andres fails to disclose that the displacement threshold is set in this manner, and it is only the manner in which this threshold is set that is relevant to claim 11. The Examiner’s rejection is premised on an erroneous finding that Andres positively discloses this feature; as such, we cannot sustain it. The rejections of all other claims fail for the same reason. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11-30 is REVERSED. REVERSED hh