10994048 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 20, 2011)

Ex Parte Blackburn

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 20, 2011

10994048 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 20, 2011)

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. 10/994,048 11/19/2004 Jeffery S. Blackburn 5702-01062 2162 7590 12/20/2011 Laurence C. Begin L.C. Begin & Associates, PLLC PMB 403 510 Highland Avenue Milford, MI 48381 EXAMINER CHOI, PETER Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1786 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2011 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 JEFFERY S. BLACKBURN ________________ Appeal 2011-001500 Application 10/994,048 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-8, 20, 21, and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An airbag device comprising: an airbag formed from a material comprising cross-laminated polyolefins. The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of the appealed claims (Ans. 4): Appeal 2011-001500 Application 10/994,048 2 Gash 4,355,076 Oct. 19, 1982 Breed 5,746,446 May 05, 1998 Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an airbag device comprising an airbag formed from cross-laminated polyolefins. Appellants rely upon a website definition of cross-laminated material as a “material laminated so that some of the layers are oriented at various angles to the other layers with respect to the laminate grain” (App. Br. 10, first para. citing “Fiberset Incorporated’s Glossary of Composite Terms”). Appealed claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Breed. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 20, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Gash. We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections to the extent they are based on § 103. There is no dispute that Breed discloses an airbag comprising two sheets of polyolefins that are oriented relative to each other with respect to direction of least tear resistance of the sheets. Breed discloses that “the materials used for the two airbags are strongly anisotropic and are attached to each other with their preferred tear directions placed at an angle, i.e., a right angle, to each other” (col. 14, ll. 22-25). Breed also teaches that the materials used for the sheets can be the same material, such as polyethylene (see col. 15, ll. 3-5). Appeal 2011-001500 Application 10/994,048 3 Appellants’ principal argument is that Breed does not disclose that the film sheets are cross-laminated and that Breed does not relate the tear resistance of a sheet to its fiber orientation. According to Appellants, “the reference does not disclose a relationship between the directions of least tear resistance and the predominant fiber orientation of the sheets” (App. Br. 13, third para.). We fully concur with the Examiner that, although Breed does not explicitly state that the direction of a polyolefin sheet’s least tear resistance is related to its fiber orientation, it is reasonable to conclude that two sheets of the same polyolefin material attached to each other with their least tear directions placed at a right angle to each other would necessarily be cross- laminated, as the term is defined by Appellants. Appellants have proffered no evidence to the contrary. Indeed, Appellants’ citation of US patent 4,832,897 for the proposition that “a direction of least tear resistance of the film is not necessarily dependent upon a particular direction of fiber orientation” (Br. 11, penultimate para.) supports the Examiner’s position. The cited patent, in fact, discloses that tear resistance is related to the orientation direction of the polymer molecules notwithstanding, as urged by Appellants, that increased tear resistance can be achieved over a range of average orientation directions of the polymer molecules. If good tear resistance is achieved over a range of orientation directions of molecules, it is reasonable to conclude that two sheets of polyolefin having their orientation directions of least tear resistance orthogonal to each other are cross-laminated. Also, the fact that good tear resistance may be achieved over a range of orientation directions is not tantamount to saying that the direction of least tear resistance corresponds to a specific orientation Appeal 2011-001500 Application 10/994,048 4 direction, and more importantly, is no indication that the direction of least tear resistance is not related to molecular orientation. Indeed, US’897 teaches otherwise. We find that Gash is not needed to support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results. In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED ssl