Ex parte Dalum

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 25, 2002

09197878 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 8

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOSEPH THOMAS DALUM
_____________
Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application 09/197,878
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before STAAB, MCQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Joseph Thomas Dalum appeals from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 10, all of the claims pending in the
application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “automotive passenger restraint
systems, and more particularly to a control method that
differentiates deployment events from non-deployment events”
(specification, page 1). Representative claim 1 reads as
follows:
Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
2
1. In a vehicular supplemental restraint system
having a sensor providing a vehicle acceleration
signal, a restraint device and a controller for
deploying the restraint device for vehicle occupant
protection in a crash event when a filtered version
of the acceleration signal exceeds a deployment
threshold, the improvement wherein the controller:
initializes the deployment threshold at a
default level prior to the crash event;
determines an event progression signal during
the crash event based on the acceleration signal to
detect predefined progression levels of the crash
event;
determines a slope of the filtered acceleration
signal;
periodically adjusts the deployment threshold
based on the determined slope, provided that the
filtered acceleration signal is within an adjustment
range specified for the detected progression level
of the crash event.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Dalum et al. (Dalum) 5,964,817 Oct. 12,
1999
(filed Nov. 09,
1998)
Wessels et al. (Wessels) 5,969,599 Oct.
19,
Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
In the final rejection (Paper No. 4), the examiner also rejected1
claims 1 through 10 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting over the claims in the Wessels patent. Upon reconsideration
(see page 9 in the answer), the examiner has withdrawn this rejection.
3
1999
(filed Nov. 09,
1998)
Foo et al. (Foo) 6,036,225 Mar. 14,
2000
(filed Jul. 01, 1998)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by each of Wessels, Dalum and Foo.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
6) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 7) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
4
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As framed by the appellant, the dispositive issues in the
appeal are whether each of Wessels, Dalum and Foo meet the
limitations in independent claims 1 and 6 relating to the
slope of the filtered acceleration signal. As indicated
above, claim 1 requires the controller recited therein to
function to determine the slope of the filtered acceleration
signal and to periodically adjust the deployment threshold
based on the determined slope provided that the filtered
acceleration signal is within an adjustment range specified
for the detected progression level of the crash event. Method
claim 6 correspondingly requires the steps of determining the
slope of the filtered acceleration signal and periodically
adjusting the deployment threshold based on the determined
slope provided that the filtered acceleration signal is within
an adjustment range specified for the detected progression
level of the crash event.
Wessels and Dalum disclose vehicular restraint systems
and methods having much in common with the system and method
Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
5
recited in appealed claims 1 and 6, respectively. Both
references make use of a filtered acceleration signal to
produce a velocity change signal, )V, which triggers
deployment of a restraint device when it exceeds a deployment
threshold. Both references also periodically adjust the
deployment threshold based on a so-called soft impact index
which is a measure of crash severity. This soft impact index
is “based on the difference between a first signal, referred
to herein as the ))V signal, and a second signal, referred to
herein as the ))V signal. The ))V signal slope
represents the cumulative change in the filtered acceleration
()V) signal over a pre-defined window, and the ))V signalslope
represents the current slope of the ))V signal” (Wessels at
column 4, lines 10 through 16; and Dalum at column 2, lines 44
through 50).
The “response to argument” comments bridging pages 7 and
8 in the answer set forth the examiner’s reasons as to why
Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
Contrary to prescribed USPTO practice (see MPEP 1208), the2
explanations of the rejections on pages 3 through 7 in the answer fail to
specify how each of the limitations in the appealed claims is met by the
applied references.
6
Wessels and Dalum respond to the foregoing claim limitations. 2
Although these comments inaccurately represent the scope of
claim 1 and the content of the appellant’s argument, they do
illuminate the examiner’s position with respect to the “slope”
limitations: “in the applied [Wessels and Dalum] patents . . .
the slope of the filtered acceleration is ))V” (answer, page
7). As pointed out above, however, the “))V” signal disclosed
by Wessels and Dalum denotes or represents the cumulative
change in the filtered acceleration signal )V, not its slope
or rate of change. Thus, the examiner’s position that Wessels
and Dalum are anticipatory
with respect to the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 6
rests on an unsound finding which is clearly at odds with the
actual teachings of these references.
Foo also discloses a vehicular restraint system and
method having some similarity to the system and method recited
Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
7
in appealed claims 1 and 6, respectively. In response to the
appellant’s ostensibly accurate observation that Foo does not
teach determining the slope of a filtered acceleration signal
and periodically adjusting the deployment threshold based on
the determined slope, the examiner states that
Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration are related
with respect to time, wherein velocity is a change
in displacement with respect to time and
acceleration is a change is [sic: in] velocity with
respect to time. Thus, one who comes with an
invention that uses acceleration instead of velocity
as may have [been] claimed in another patent
infringes that patent if the mere difference is in
the use of the velocity as opposed to the
acceleration without any modification in the process
[answer, pages 8 and 9].
Be this as it may, it does not cogently explain how or
why Foo meets the claim limitations at issue.
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s determination
that each of the applied references meets all of the
limitations in claims 1 and 6 is not well taken. Accordingly,
we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1
and 6, and of dependent claims 2 through 5 and 7 through 10,
Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
8
as being anticipated by each of Wessels, Dalum and Foo.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through
10 is reversed.
REVERSED
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ljs/vsh
Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
9
JIMMY L. FUNKE
DELCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 9005
ERC BUILDING MAIL STOP D32
KOKOMO, IN 46904