Ex Parte BujakDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 27, 200810249132 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2008) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER RICHARD BUJAK ____________ Appeal 2007-4343 Application 10/249,132 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Decided: March 27, 2008 ____________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, ANTON W. FETTING, and STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Christopher Richard Bujak (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-20, the only claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002). Appeal 2007-4343 Application 10/249,132 The Invention Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a restraint system for automotive vehicles that uses two sensors to determine a crash event (Specification, ¶ 1). Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative of the invention and read as follows: 1. A system for an automotive vehicle having a door comprising: a first sensor generating a first signal corresponding to a first crash characteristic comprising a door cavity pressure; a second sensor generating a second signal corresponding to a second crash characteristic different than the first characteristic; a restraint device; and a controller coupled to said first sensor, said second sensor and said restraint device, said controller when either the first signal is above a first threshold or the second signal is above a second threshold, comparing the first signal and second signal to each other and deploying the restraint device in response to comparing. 2. A system as recited in claim 1 wherein said controller categorizes an event mode in response to the first signal and the second signal and deploys the restraint device in response to the controller comparing the first signal and second signal and the controller categorizing the event mode. The Rejection Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably 2 Appeal 2007-4343 Application 10/249,132 convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Appellant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the invention. We make reference in our decision to the Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 3, 2006) and Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed February 10, 2006) for the respective positions of the Examiner and Appellant. THE ISSUE At issue in this appeal is whether Appellant’s application, as originally filed, adequately describes the comparison of the cavity pressure and acceleration sensor signals and the event mode determination carried out in steps 114 and 116, respectively, of Appellant’s Figure 9 to convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Appellant was in possession of the invention as now recited in claims 1-3 and 5-20 as of the filing date of the application. PRINCIPLES OF LAW The description requirement found in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate from the enablement requirement of that provision. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 591 (CCPA 1977). 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, requires a “written description of the invention” which is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. The purpose of the “written description” requirement is broader than to merely explain how to “make and use”; the applicant must also convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention 3 Appeal 2007-4343 Application 10/249,132 is, for purposes of the “written description” inquiry, whatever is now claimed. . . . drawings alone may be sufficient to provide the "written description of the invention" required by § 112, first paragraph. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563-64 (emphasis original). “The written description requirement does not require the applicant ‘to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, [instead] the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’” Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact. Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985). FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Appellant’s original Specification and drawings describe the invention as follows: 1. The system “uses two sensors to measure different crash characteristics and uses a comparison of the sensor signals to safe each other and to provide a particular type or series of deployments corresponding to a particular event mode in response to the measured sensor signals” (Specification ¶ 4). 2. The Specification repeatedly refers to comparing the first (door cavity pressure) and second (accelerometer) signals, when either the first signal or the second signal is above a threshold (Specification, ¶¶ 5, 6, 7). 4 Appeal 2007-4343 Application 10/249,132 3. The Specification, in Paragraphs 31 and 32, describes the flow diagram of Figure 9 as follows: In step 100 the crash event is started. In step 102 a crash deceleration pulse is applied to the vehicle 10. Door cavity pressure sensors 28 and accelerometers 30 generate respective signals which start a crash event algorithm 104. A change in door pressure in step 106 and a change in acceleration in step 108 are parallel paths through the crash event algorithm. When the door pressure sensor indicates a pressure greater than a first or pressure threshold in step 110, or the accelerometer 30 indicates an acceleration in excess of a second or acceleration threshold in step 112, the acceleration and pressure are compared in step 114. In step 114, by comparing the acceleration and pressure from the door cavity pressure signals 28 and the accelerometer 30, a safing mode is entered. That is, if a high level of pressure change is detected, some deceleration of the vehicle in the lateral direction may also be detected. If some change in acceleration is detected, some change in door pressure indicating a crash may also be detected. Thus, erroneous signals may be removed from consideration. Of course, these considerations are based on the vehicle and the number of sensors employed. Each different type of vehicle may include a different set of threshold, acceleration, and pressure parameters. In step 116, the characteristics of pressure and sensor may be used to determine an event mode. Various types of event modes including but not limited to those illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 may be formed. That is, when the vehicle hits a pole sideways, one set of deployment criteria may be employed. When a vehicle is hitting the front 5 Appeal 2007-4343 Application 10/249,132 quarter and/or front door of the vehicle or the rear quarter of the vehicle, another two types of event modes may be entered. Again, the various types of event modes and the sequence of deployment and the timing of the deployment varies based upon the vehicle model. Such values may be easily determined in pre-production testing. Step 116 may also perform the safing function described above with respect to step 114. In step 118 if during the safing function the event mode is not a qualified event, step 104 is executed. In step 118 if the event mode indicates a qualified event, various restraints such as those described above may be deployed in step 120. Of course, the timing and sequence of the deployments may be varied. Also, the number of restraint devices may also be varied. In step 122 the event is complete. ANALYSIS The Examiner makes it clear that the rejection is not based on lack of enablement (Answer 4). The Examiner's position is that the comparing (claims 1, 9, and 18) and determining (“categorizing” of claims 2, 10, and 19) carried out in steps 114 and 116 of Figure 9 are not adequately described (Answer 3). The Examiner also appears to be concerned that the relationship between the pressure and acceleration sensor signals is not adequately described (Answer 3) and that no comparative relationship of those signals to each other is disclosed (Answer 4). The Examiner implies that the specification must show reduction to practice in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (Answer 4). That an invention can be ready for patenting prior to reduction to practice is made 6 Appeal 2007-4343 Application 10/249,132 clear in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 66 (1998), wherein it is stated: The word “invention” must refer to a concept that is complete, rather than merely one that is “substantially complete.” It is true that reduction to practice ordinarily provides the best evidence that an invention is complete. But just because reduction to practice is sufficient evidence of completion, it does not follow that proof of reduction to practice is necessary in every case. Indeed, both the facts of The Telephone Cases and the facts of this case demonstrate that one can prove that an invention is complete and ready for patenting before it has actually been reduced to practice. Therefore, to the extent that the Examiner requires Appellant’s application to show the invention was reduced to practice at the time the application was filed, the Examiner applies an incorrect standard. Based on our findings, enumerated supra, we conclude that Appellant’s application, as originally filed, reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the door cavity pressure sensor signal and the accelerometer signal are compared to one another. We reach this conclusion from the repeated reference throughout the Specification to comparing the door cavity pressure sensor signal and the accelerometer signal, without identification of any other signal or reference value to which they are compared (FF1, FF2, and FF3). This conclusion also follows logically from the description of Figure 9 (FF3: Specification, ¶ 31), which explains that: when either the door cavity pressure sensor signal or the accelerometer signal exceeds its threshold, the acceleration and pressure are compared in step 114; if a high level is sensed by one of the sensors, some change in the 7 Appeal 2007-4343 Application 10/249,132 other signal “may also be detected”; thus, erroneous signals may be removed from consideration. While Paragraph 31 of Appellant’s Specification does not explicitly state that the door cavity pressure sensor signal and accelerometer signal are compared to each other, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the disclosure therein that in the event of an actual crash, a change in both pressure and acceleration signals would be expected. If a change is detected in only one of the two, this is deemed to be an erroneous signal. In such a situation, the event is not categorized as a crash event, and no restraint is deployed. We thus conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Appellant’s Specification that the pressure and acceleration signals are compared to each other in the event that either one of them exceeds its threshold. We further conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the description in Appellant’s Specification (FF3) that an event is categorized as either a crash event (both signals changed) or a non- crash event (only one signal changed), and categorized as to location (front, rear, side, etc.) based on which sensor signals changed (front, rear, front passenger door, front driver door, etc.) to determine which restraint to deploy. For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to persuade us that Appellant’s application, as originally filed, lacks an adequate description of the invention to convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that at the time the application was filed, Appellant was in possession of the invention as now recited in claims 1-3 and 5-20 in compliance with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The rejection cannot be sustained. 8 Appeal 2007-4343 Application 10/249,132 CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3 and 5-12 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed. REVERSED JRG Dickinson Wright, PLLC 38525 Woodward Avenue Suite 2000 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation