Ex Parte Cheng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 7, 201714260601 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/260,601 04/24/2014 James Chih CHENG 83412554 2710 28395 7590 11/09/2017 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER BECK, KAREN 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/09/2017 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): docketing @brookskushman. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES CHIH CHENG, JAEHO CHO, JAMEL E. BEL WAFA, MOHAMMED OMAR FARUQUE, EDWARD JOSEPH ABRAMOSKI, PARDEEP KUMAR JINDAL, and DIAMAL EDDINE MIDOUN Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 Technology Center 3600 Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—5; and, we reverse the Examiner’s (i) anticipation rejection of claims 6—13, and (ii) obviousness rejection of claims 14 and 15. Exemplary Claims Exemplary independent claims 1, 6, and 11 each have differing scope, with claim 1 being the broadest and claim 11 being the narrowest. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are reproduced below with emphases and underlining added to disputed portions of each claim: 1. A vehicle airbag system comprising: an airbag module including a passenger side frontal airbag arrangement defining a primary bag configured to cushion an occupant torso during driver side oblique impacts and a satellite bag positioned on a side of the primary bag and configured to, in response to inflation, cause the primary bag to recoil in a direction away from a passenger side to shift a position of the primary bag toward the driver side. 6. A vehicle comprising: an instrument panel; and an airbag module including a passenger side frontal airbag and an inflator disposed behind the instrument panel, the airbag defining, when inflated, a cushion section configured to receive an occupant torso during driver side oblique impacts and a balloon section configured to, during inflation, press against the instrument panel to propel the cushion section in a direction away from a passenger side to shift a position of the cushion section toward a driver side. 2 Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 11. An airbag module for a vehicle comprising: an inflator disposed behind an instrument panel; and a passenger side frontal airbag arrangement including a cushion section configured to receive an occupant torso during driver side oblique impacts and a balloon section disposed proximate a base of the cushion section and adjacent the instrument panel such that, upon inflation, the balloon section contacts and pushes against the instrument panel to propel the cushion section in a direction away from a passenger side to form a swell on the cushion section adjacent to the balloon section confisured to hinder movement of the occupant toward a driver side. The Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suyama (US 5,575,497, issued Nov. 19, 1996).1 Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 3—5. (2) The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suyama and Kuhlmann (US 2011/0140399 Al, published June 16, 2011). Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 5—6. 1 Appellants present arguments primarily as to (i) independent claim 1, and argues dependent claims 2—5 on the same basis as claim 1 from which claims 2—5 depend (see App. Br. 3^4). We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1—5. Appellants present separate arguments as to (i) independent claim 6, and argue dependent claims 7—10 on the same basis as claim 6 from which these claims depend (see App. Br. 4—5); and (ii) independent claim 11, and argue dependent claims 12—15 on the same basis as independent claim 11 from which claims 12—15 depend. Notably, the obviousness rejections of claims 14 and 15 rely on the same base reference to Suyama in addition to secondary references to Kuhlmann or Schneider. Therefore, we will decide the outcome of the obviousness rejections of claims 14 and 15 on the same basis as the outcome of claim 11 from which claims 14 and 15 depend. 3 Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 (3) The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suyama and Schneider (US 2011/0101660 Al, published May 5, 2011). Final Act. 5; Ans. 6. Issues on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3—7) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-4), the following issues are presented on appeal: (1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Suyama by determinng Suyama discloses a vehicle airbag system including a passenger side frontal airbag arrangement having a primary airbag and a satellite airbag, the satellite airbag being positioned on a side of the primary bag and is “configured to, in response to inflation, cause the primary bag to recoil in a direction away from a passenger side to shift a position of the primary bag toward the driver side,” as recited in representative claim 1? (2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6—10 as being anticipated by Suyama by determining Suyama discloses a vehicle with an inflator behind an instrument panel, the vehicle including a passenger side frontal airbag having “a cushion section” and “a balloon section configured to, during inflation, press against the instrument panel to propel the cushion section in a direction away from a passenger side to shift a position of the cushion section toward a driver side,” as recited in independent claim 6? (3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 11—13 as being anticipated by Suyama; and (ii) claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Suyama and either Kuhlmann or Schneider, because by determining Suyama discloses an airbag module for a vehicle having an 4 Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 inflator and a passenger side frontal airbag arrangement including “a cushion section” and “a balloon section disposed proximate a base of the cushion section” where “upon inflation, the balloon section contacts and pushes against the instrument panel to propel the cushion section in a direction away from a passenger side to form a swell on the cushion section adjacent to the balloon section configured to hinder movement of the occupant toward a driver side,” as recited in independent claim 11? Claim 11 (emphasis added). ANALYSIS We begin our analysis by noting that when an Examiner rejects claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, it is incumbent upon him or her to establish an underlying factual basis to support the prior art rejection—the so-called “prima facie” case. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (indicating the United States Patent and Trademark Office has the initial burden of proof “to produce the factual basis for its rejection of an application under sections 102 and 103”) (quoting In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967)). “[T]he [Ejxaminer bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2—5; Ans. 3— 6) in light of (1) Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 3—7) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—A) and (2) the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 6—8). We agree with Appellants’ arguments as to the anticipation rejection of claims 6—13 5 Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 and the obviousness rejections of claims 14 and 15 (see App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 3—4). We disagree with Appellants’ arguments as to the anticipation rejection of claims 1—5 (see App. Br. 3—4; Reply Br. 2—3). Rejection of Claims 1—5 With regard to representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2; Ans. 3—4), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 6) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Appellants argue (App. Br. 3—4; Reply Br. 2—3) that Suyama’s Figure 1 and column 1, lines 31—35 fail to disclose, and fail to support a rejection of claim 1 which recites a primary bag recoiling in a direction away from a passenger side of a vehicle so as to shift a position of the primary airbag. However, Appellants admit Suyama’s “Figure 1 does show an airbag using multiple airbags” (App. Br. 4), and Suyama discloses “that a side-collision airbag needs to inflate quicker than a frontal-collision airbag” (App. Br. 3). We agree with the Examiner’s findings (Final Act. 2; Ans. 3—4, 6) that Suyama (col. 3,11. 31—49; col. 4,11. 1—6; col. 6,11. 25—39 (claim 2)) discloses a vehicle airbag system including a passenger side frontal airbag arrangement including a primary airbag and a satellite airbag positioned on a side of the primary bag “configured to, in response to inflation, cause the primary bag to recoil in a direction away from a passenger side to shift a position of the primary bag toward the driver side,” and therefore anticipates representative independent claim 1. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that “Suyama is ‘configured’ to operate or function as claimed” because Suyama’s “arrangement is ‘configured’ to cause the [passenger’s] 6 Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 primary bag to recoil in a direction away from a passenger side to shift a position of the primary bag toward the drive side during inflation, as well as after inflation of both the satellite bag and the primary bag, and also when the occupant impacts the airbag” (Ans. 6). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2—5 grouped therewith. Rejection of Claims 6—10 With regard to the anticipation rejection of claims 6—10, we find that Appellants have rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case, and the Examiner has failed to adequately articulate how Suyama discloses a vehicle with an inflator behind an instrument panel including a passenger side frontal airbag having a cushion section and a balloon section “configured to, during inflation, press against the instrument panel to propel the cushion section in a direction away from a passenger side to shift a position of the cushion section toward a driver side,” as recited in independent claim 6. Although Suyama describes Figure 6’s inflators Is and If mounted in the instrument panel P (Suyama, column 5, lines 35—36), we agree with Appellants’ arguments (see App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 3) that Suyama’s Figure 6, column 1, line 35, and column 3, lines 43—50 do not disclose or provide support that the first air bag of Suyama presses against the instrument panel to propel the second air bag of Suyama to shift a position of the second air bag of Suyama” (App. Br. 5). In addition, the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 4, 7) generally alludes to portions of Suyama (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6) corresponding to four different embodiments (see generally, col. 2,11. 45—58), which is not 7 Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 proper for an anticipation rejection.2 Therefore, we also agree with Appellants (App. Br. 4) that the Examiner does not clearly specify which embodiment is used for the rejection of claim 6 as allegedly teaching the disputed limitation. On this record, we are constrained to conclude the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation and do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 6, as well as claims 7—10 depending therefrom which contain the same limitation. Rejections of Claims 11—15 With regard to the anticipation rejection of claims 11—13, the Examiner has failed to show that Suyama discloses a balloon section as recited in claim 11. While it might be the case that Suyama could be configured to operate in the manner claimed, we find no such disclosure in the cited portions of Suyama to support the Examiner’s position as noted previously. Suyama’s Figure 6, column 1, line 35, and column 4, line 2 2 In an anticipation rejection, “it is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that [an ordinary] artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, the reference must “clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.” Id. (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972)). Thus, while “[s]uch picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection . . . it has no place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at 587—88. 8 Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 (relied upon by the Examiner as disclosing the disputed balloon section limitation) neither describe nor show an airbag arrangement having a cushion section operating to hinder movement of an occupant towards a driver side by forming a swell and a balloon section operating to push against the instrument panel and propel the cushion section in a direction away from a passenger side, as claimed. We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,1017 (CCPA 1967); see also In re Coley, 40 F.2d 982, 986 (CCPA 1930) (“Where there is such doubt, the scales should be inclined toward the applicant.”). As such, we determine that the Examiner provides inadequate findings that Suyama discloses and anticipates the disputed claim limitation of “a balloon section disposed proximate a base of the cushion section” where “upon inflation, the balloon section contacts and pushes against the instrument panel to propel the cushion section in a direction away from a passenger side to form a swell on the cushion section adjacent to the balloon section configured to hinder movement of the occupant toward a driver side,” as recited in claim 11. Claim 11 (emphasis added). Therefore, on this record, we are constrained to agree with Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3 4) that the cited sections of Suyama fail to disclose, teach, or suggest an airbag module for a vehicle having an inflator and a passenger side frontal airbag arrangement including “a cushion section” and “a balloon section disposed proximate a base of the cushion section” where “upon inflation, the balloon section contacts and pushes against the instrument panel to propel the cushion section in a direction away from a passenger side to form a swell on the cushion 9 Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 section adjacent to the balloon section configured to hinder movement of the occupant toward a driver side,” as recited in representative claim 11. Claim 11 (emphasis added). In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 11, as well as claims 12 and 13 depending therefrom which contain the same limitation. For similar reasons, and because Appellants rely on the arguments presented for claim 11 as to the patentability of claims 14 and 15, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 14 and 15, which depend from claim 11, and contain the same disputed limitations. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Suyama because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, Suyama discloses a vehicle airbag system including a passenger side frontal airbag arrangement including a primary airbag and a satellite airbag positioned on a side of the primary bag “configured to, in response to inflation, cause the primary bag to recoil in a direction away from a passenger side to shift a position of the primary bag toward the driver side,” as recited in representative claim 1. (2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6—10 as being anticipated by Suyama by failing to show where in the cited section Suyama discloses a vehicle with an inflator behind an instrument panel including a passenger side frontal airbag having “a cushion section” and “a balloon section configured to, during inflation, press against the instrument panel to propel 10 Appeal 2016-007303 Application 14/260,601 the cushion section in a direction away from a passenger side to shift a position of the cushion section toward a driver side,” as recited in independent claim 6. (3) The Examiner erred in rejecting (i) claims 11—13 as being anticipated by Suyama; and (ii) claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Suyama in combination with either Kuhlman or Schneider, because the Examiner fails to show how Suyama discloses and/or suggests an airbag module for a vehicle having an inflator and a passenger side frontal airbag arrangement including “a cushion section” and “a balloon section disposed proximate a base of the cushion section” where “upon inflation, the balloon section contacts and pushes against the instrument panel to propel the cushion section in a direction away from a passenger side to form a swell on the cushion section adjacent to the balloon section configured to hinder movement of the occupant toward a driver side,” as recited in independent claim 11. Claim 11 (emphasis added). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—5; and, we reverse the Examiner’s (i) anticipation rejection of claims 6—13, and (ii) obviousness rejection of claims 14 and 15. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation