Ex Parte Burns et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 21, 2011

11067040 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 21, 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.
11/067,040 02/25/2005 Sean P. Burns 5702-01075 8297
46510 7590 11/21/2011
L.C. BEGIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
510 HIGHLAND AVENUE
PMB 403
MILFORD, MI 48381
EXAMINER
GOODEN JR, BARRY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2011 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 SEAN P. BURNS, BRUCE A. STEVENS
PARESH S. KHANDHADIA, and TAKASHI FURUSAWA
____________

Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-20.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an airbag device. Claim 1, reproduced
below with emphasis added, illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. An airbag device for use in a vehicle occupant
protection system, the airbag device comprising:
an inflator housing configured as a structural member
of a vehicle, the housing comprising a cavity portion for
receiving a gas generant composition therein, and a
plurality of perforations formed along the cavity portion
to enable fluid communication between an interior of the
housing and an exterior of the housing;
a longitudinal enclosure separate from the housing
and positioned within the housing, the enclosure having a
first perforated section and a second perforated section;
and
a gas generant composition positioned within the
enclosure.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Asplund US 2,995,088 Aug. 8, 1961
Chandler US 5,482,315 Jan. 9, 1996
Galbraith US 5,615,914 Apr. 1, 1997
Lane US 5,779,263 July 14, 1998

1 Claim 3 was objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim but
indicated to be allowable if rewritten in independent form with the
limitations of the base and intervening claims. Office Action mailed Mar.
12, 2008 at 6.

Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040

3
The following grounds of rejection are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12-15, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lane.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Lane.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lane and Asplund.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 9 under § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lane and Galbraith.
5. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 11 under § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lane and Chandler.
ISSUE
The issue presented by this appeal is:
Does Lane disclose an inflator housing configured as a structural
member of a vehicle and a longitudinal enclosure separate from the inflator
housing and positioned within the inflator housing as called for in
independent claims 1, 19, and 20?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12-15, and 18-20 as anticipated by Lane
Independent claims 1, 19, and 20
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987). Every element and limitation of a claimed invention must
be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten
Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040

4
The Examiner found that Lane discloses an inflator housing (upper
support frame 22) configured as a structural member of a vehicle and a
longitudinal enclosure (inflator 50) that is separate from the inflator housing
22 and positioned in the inflator housing 22 as called for in claims 1, 19, and
20. Ans. 3, 9-12. The Examiner’s findings are supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Lane’s support frame 22 is configured as a
vehicle seat frame (Lane, col. 1, ll. 33-34) and the claimed inflator housing
can be a vehicle seat frame (Spec. 12, ll. 23-25; claim 12). Lane’s inflator
50 corresponds to the claimed longitudinal enclosure because it contains a
gas generant and is positioned within the support frame 22 as called for in
claims 1, 19, and 20. Lane, col. 1, ll. 49-62; figs. 1, 2. Appellants even
argue that Lane’s support frame 22 is a structural member of a vehicle and
Lane’s inflator 50 is separate from the support frame 22 and positioned
within the support frame 22. See App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 6-7.
Appellants also argue that Lane’s upper seat frame 22 and inflator 50
do not correspond to the claimed inflator housing and longitudinal enclosure
because their Specification defines “inflator housing” as being part of, and
inseparable from, the longitudinal enclosure/inflator whereas Lane’s frame
22 and inflator 50 are separable and fully functional when separated. Reply
Br. 6-10; App. Br. 11-15. This argument is not persuasive because claims 1,
19, and 20 call for the longitudinal enclosure to be separate from the inflator
housing and positioned in the inflator housing. See Ans. 9-11 (noting that
this argument is not commensurate with the claim). Appellants do not point
to anything in their Specification to support this argument. Appellants’
Specification discloses that “the use of the inflator housing as a ‘structural
member’ refers to the use of the housing in a structural role (such as load
Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040

5
bearing or impact resistance) separate from the function of a conventional
inflator (i.e., supplying an inflation fluid to an airbag or other inflatable
element of a vehicle occupant protection system).” Spec. 8, ll. 14-18. This
disclosure does not support Appellants’ argument that the inflator housing
must be monolithic with the longitudinal enclosure and inseparable from it.
Appellants’ argument that Lane’s inflator 50 does not correspond to
the “inflator housing” (Reply Br. 7-10, 16-17; App. Br. 13, 21-22) is not
persuasive because the Examiner found that Lane’s inflator 50 corresponds
to the claimed longitudinal enclosure and Lane’s seat frame 22 corresponds
to the claimed inflator housing. Ans. 3. Lane’s use of different terminology
does not provide a valid point of distinction. See In re Gleave, 530 F.3d
1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Although a reference must disclose each and
every limitation in a claim to anticipate the claim, the reference need not
satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.).
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from independent claim 1 and recites “wherein the
enclosure has a substantially uniform cross-sectional area along at least a
portion of the enclosure, said first perforated section contains a first gas exit
aperture area and said second perforated section contains a second gas exit
aperture area, said second gas exit aperture area being greater than said first
gas exit aperture area, the gas generant composition being distributed
substantially uniformly along the at least a portion of the enclosure; and
wherein an igniter is operably fixed to said first perforated section for
ignition of said gas generant-composition upon inflator activation.”
The Examiner found that Lane discloses an enclosure (inflator 50)
with a substantially uniform cross-section, a first gas exit aperture area on its
Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040

6
lower half (2 holes), a greater second gas exit aperture area on its upper half
(3 holes), and gas generant distributed substantially uniformly along at least
a portion of the enclosure. Ans. 4. Appellants argue that Lane does not
disclose how the gas generant is distributed in the inflator 50 or the areas of
the gas exit apertures. Reply Br. 11. Appellants also argue that Lane does
not give any details of the internal structure of the inflator 50 and therefore
cannot disclose the elements recited in claim 2. App. Br. 16.
The Examiner’s findings are supported by a preponderance of
evidence. Lane discloses an inflator 50 with five gas exit ports 56 of equal
diameter. Lane, col. 2, ll. 2-4; fig. 3. The three gas exit ports 56 in the
upper portion of Lane’s inflator 50 provide a greater aperture area than the
two gas exit ports 56 in the lower portion of the inflator 50. Ans. 4 (citing
Figure 3 of Lane). Lane’s inflator 50 also has a substantially uniform cross
sectional area across at least a portion of the inflator and contains a gas
generant composition. Lane, col. 1, l. 58 to col. 2, l. 6; fig. 3. Persons
skilled in the art would understand that inert gas and propellant in a pressure
vessel of a hybrid inflator (Lane, col. 1, ll. 58-62) and liquid propellant
would be distributed substantially uniformly across at least a portion of the
inflator 50 as called for in claim 2.
Because we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, Appellants’
further argument that claim 2 is novel based on its dependency from claim 1
is not persuasive.2 See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 11.

2 Appellants incorporate their arguments for patentability of claim 1 in their
arguments that claims 6, 7, 12-15, and 18 are novel because they depend
from claim 1 (Reply Br. 12-16; App. Br. 16-19, 20) and claims 4, 5, 8-11,
16, and 17 are nonobvious because they depend from claim 1 (Reply Br. 18-
Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040

7
Claim 6
The Examiner found Lane discloses an extension portion (cushion
pack 70) extending from the cavity portion of the inflator housing 22 as
called for in claim 6. Ans. 4. The Examiner’s findings are supported by a
preponderance of evidence.
Appellants argue that Lane does not disclose an extension portion
extending from the inflator 50 of Lane. App. Br. 17. This argument is not
persuasive because the Examiner found that Lane’s seat frame 22, 40a
corresponds to the claimed inflator housing and Lane discloses an extension
(cushion pack 70) extending from the cavity of the seat frame as called for in
claim 6. Lane, fig. 2.
Appellants also argue that their Specification discloses extensions that
may be hollow or solid, whereas the cushion pack 70 of Lane is hollow and
contains an airbag 90. Reply Br. 12-13. This argument is not persuasive
because claim 6 does not recite such feature(s) for the claimed extension and
we decline to read any such limitations from the Specification into claim 6.
See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover,
Appellants admit that Lane’s cushion pack 70 is hollow. Reply Br. 13.
Appellants also assert that the extensions “augment the structural and
safety advantages of using inflator housing 12 as a reinforcement member by
enabling the housing to be fabricated into any of a wide variety of shapes . . .
.” Reply Br. 12-13. Appellants argue that Lane’s cushion pack 70 cannot
perform this function. Reply Br. 13. These arguments are not persuasive
because claim 6 does not call for the extension to be a structural member as

23; App. Br. 23-28). Because Lane discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
these arguments are not persuasive.
Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040

8
claims 1, 19, and 20 recite for the inflator housing. We decline to read such
limitations into claim 6. Moreover, the cushion pack 70 includes a housing
72, base, 74, and clamping part 100 that are secured to the inflator housing
(frame 22). Lane, col. 2, ll. 15-12 and 39-42; fig. 2. The Examiner found
that this configuration augments the structural features of the frame 22 (Ans.
13) and Appellants have not shown error in that finding.
Claim 7
The Examiner found Lane discloses coupling means (fasteners 110) to
couple the extension portion to the cavity portion as called for in claim 7.
Ans. 4. Appellants argue that Lane does not disclose extension portions as
recited in claim 6 and therefore does not disclose coupling means of claim 7.
Reply Br. 13; App. Br. 18. This argument is not persuasive because Lane
discloses the claimed extension portion of claim 6 as discussed supra.
Claim 12-15
The Examiner found that Lane’s inflator housing 22 is configured as a
vehicle seat frame as called for in claim 12. Ans. 4. The Examiner found
that Lane discloses an inflatable element 90 coupled to the inflator housing
22 as called for in claim 13 (Ans. 4) and a coupling means 26 that enables
detachable coupling of the inflator housing 22 to another vehicle structural
member 24 as called for in claims 14 and 15 (Ans. 5). Appellants argue that
Lane does not disclose an inflator housing and therefore does not disclose an
inflator housing configured as a vehicle seat frame (claim 12), an inflatable
element coupled to an inflator housing (claim 13), a coupling means to
couple an inflator housing to another structural member (claim 14), or a
detachable coupling means (claim 15). App. Br. 18-20, Reply Br. 14-16.

Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040

9
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because Lane discloses an
inflator housing as called for in claim 1 as discussed supra. The Examiner’s
findings that Lane discloses the claimed vehicle seat frame, inflatable
element, and detachable coupling means are supported by a preponderance
of evidence and Appellants have not shown error in those findings.
Claim 18
Appellants argue that Lane does not disclose an extension portion as
called for in claim 6 and therefore does not disclose an extension portion that
is substantially solid as called for in claim 18. App. Br. 20. This argument
is not persuasive because Lane disclose an extension as recited in claim 6, as
discussed supra, and Appellants have not shown error in that finding.
Claims 5, 16, and 17 as obvious over Lane
Appellants argue that Lane does not disclose an “inflator housing” as
called for in claim 1 and therefore does not disclose an inflator housing
“configured as a vehicle cross-member coupled to roof pillars on opposite
sides of the vehicle” as recited in claim 5, “a coupling means” “configured
for coupling the inflator housing to at least one roof pillar” as recited in
claim 16, or “another inflator housing coupled to the inflator housing” as
recited in claim 17. Reply Br. 18-19. These arguments are not persuasive
because the Examiner’s finding that Lane discloses an inflator housing
configured as a vehicle structural member is supported by a preponderance
of evidence and Appellants have not shown error in this finding.
Claim 4 based on Lane and Asplund
Appellants argue that neither Lane nor Asplund discloses an inflator
housing as called for in claim 1 and therefore claim 4, which depends from
claim 1, is not obvious. App. Br. 25; Reply Br. 19-20. This argument is not
Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040

10
persuasive because the Examiner’s finding that Lane discloses an inflator
housing configured as a vehicle structural member is supported by a
preponderance of evidence as discussed supra for claim 1.
Claims 8 and 9
The Examiner found Lane discloses all the limitations of claims 8 and
9 except an inflator configured as part of a vehicle bumper, which Galbraith
discloses. Ans. 7. Appellants argue neither Lane nor Galbraith discloses an
inflator housing configured as a vehicle structural member or a vehicle
bumper as recited in claims 1 and 8. Reply Br. 20-21; App. Br. 25-26.
The Examiner’s findings that Lane discloses an inflator housing and
Galbraith discloses an inflator housing configured as a vehicle bumper as
called for in claims 1 and 8 respectively are supported by a preponderance of
evidence. See Galbraith, col. 6, ll. 6-12; fig. 11. Appellants have not shown
error in those findings.
Claims 10 and 11
The Examiner found that Lane discloses all the limitations of claims
10 and 11 except an inflator housing configured as a vehicle door frame as
called for in claim 10. The Examiner found that Chandler discloses this
claimed feature. Ans. 8. Appellants argue that neither reference discloses a
longitudinal enclosure separate from the housing and positioned within the
housing with first and second perforated sections and a gas generant
composition as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 21-23. As a
result, Appellants assert that claims 1, 10, and 11 are nonobvious over these
references. App. Br. 27, 28; Reply Br. 22, 23.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner’s
findings that Lane discloses a longitudinal enclosure separate from the
Appeal 2010-000986
Application 11/067,040

11
housing and positioned in the housing with first and second perforated
sections and a gas generant composition are supported by a preponderance
of evidence as discussed supra for the rejection of claim 1 based on Lane.
The Examiner does not rely on Chandler to disclose these claimed features.
Appellants have not shown any error in the Examiner’s findings.
CONCLUSION
Lane discloses an inflator housing configured as a structural member
of a vehicle and a longitudinal enclosure separate from the housing and
positioned within the housing as called for in independent claims 1, 19, and
20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12-15, and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lane is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5, 16, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Lane is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 4 under § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lane and Asplund is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8 and 9 under § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lane and Galbraith is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10 and 11 under § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lane and Chandler 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED
mls