Ex parte GANS et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 1999

08286795 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 1999)

Application for patent filed August 5, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte RUSSELL S. GANS,
MICHAEL J. RAVENBERG, TERRY R. DAVIS
and
PATRICK G. JARBOE
_____________
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,7951
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT and NASE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
2
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 3 through 8 and 10 through 16,
which are all of the claims remaining in the application.
Claims 2 and 9 have been canceled.
Appellants’ invention relates to a serviceable,
tethered cover, airbag system wherein the cover can be discon-
nected and reconnected to the tether without disturbance of
the connection at the other end of the tether. A copy of
representative claims 1 and 8 can be found in the Appendix to
appellants’ brief.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner
in rejecting the appealed claims are:
MacFadden 2,099,655 Nov. 16,
1937
Hirabayashi 4,911,471 Mar. 27,
1990
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
3
Seizert 5,044,663 Sept. 3,
1991
Sakakida et al. (Sakakida) 5,150,919 Sept. 29,
1992
Rogers et al. (Rogers) 5,332,257 July 26,
1994
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Sakakida.
Claims 3, 5, 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hirabayashi in view of
Sakakida.
Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sakakida in view of Seizert.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Sakakida in view of MacFadden.
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
4
Claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of MacFadden.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 10, mailed September 21, 1995) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 17, mailed July 3, 1996) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’
brief (Paper No. 16, filed February 13, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 19, filed August 12, 1996) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants’ specification and
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
5
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims
1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we note that the examiner’s
position with regard to independent claim 1 seems to be that
Sakakida’s cover (24a, 24b), seen in Figures 8-10, can be
removed for repair or replacement by merely removing the nuts
(153, 155) and separating the tabs on the ends of the tethers
(151) from the bolts (152, 154), without disturbing the
connection of the tethers to the casing (21) at members (29)
and (131). Like appellants, we find this position to be
untenable. When the cover (24a, 24b) of Sakakida is in the
position seen in Figure 8 of the patent, i.e., with the cover
closing the panel opening (1a) and the tethers (151)
interconnected between the cover and the bracket (29) of the
airbag housing via holding members (131) and pins (135)
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
6
thereof, we see no way that one could remove the nuts (153,
155) without first having to disengage the connection
between the holding members (131, 135) and the bracket (29) as
is explained in column 8, line 64, et seq., of Sakakida. This
being the case, it follows that the cover of Sakakida Figures
8-10 is not “releasable for permitting removal or replacement
of said cover means without disturbance of the connection of
said tether to said at least one of said panel and said
housing,” as required in appellants’ claim 1 on appeal. In
this regard, we agree with appellants’ arguments found on
pages 4-6 of the brief and pages 2-3 of the reply brief.
We particularly observe that the examiner’s position (answer,
page 5) that the nuts (153) can be accessed directly through a
gap between the cover members and housing (said gap
purportedly being found in Fig. 2 of Sakakida between the
housing 20 opening and the doors 24a, 24b) is based on total
speculation and finds no support whatsoever in the Sakakida
reference. Thus, the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 on
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
7
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Sakakida will not
be sustained.
As for the examiner’s rejection of independent claim
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Sakakida, we note that
claim 8 sets forth releasable attachment means connecting the
tether
means and the cover means to permit disconnection and
reconnection of the cover means and the tether means, wherein
said attachment means comprises detachably interconnectable
male and female connectors, with
said male connector being longitudinally
slidable in said female connector to a
position at which it forms a connection
with said female connector.
The embodiments seen in Figures 7 and 8 of the
present application appear to be representative of the subject
matter set forth in claim 8 on appeal, given that the male
connector (78) in Figure 7 and the male connector (88) of
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
8
Figure 8 are each longitudinally slidable in their respective
female connectors (75, 85) to a position at which the male
connector forms a connection with said female connector.
Like appellants (brief, pages 6-7), we do not
consider that sliding a bolt (e.g., 152) of Sakakida Figure 10
through the hole in a tab of one of the tethers (151) forms a
connection with the female connector as is required in claim 8
on appeal. Claim 8 requires attachment means which comprise
detachably interconnectable male and female connectors,
wherein longitudinal
sliding of the male connector to a particular position within
the female connector “forms” (i.e., causes) a connection to be
made with the female connector. Such an arrangement is
clearly not found in Sakakida. In the Sakakida patent, it is
the nut (e.g., 153) which forms or causes the actual
connection between the male connector (bolt) and the female
connector (tether tab). Thus, since Sakakida only achieves a
connection of its male and female connectors by rotationally
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
9
applying a nut over the tab on the bolt, we must agree with
appellants that Sakakida does not anticipate the subject
matter set forth in claim 8 on appeal. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on Sakakida will not be sustained.
In the rejection of dependent claims 3, 5, 10 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner urges (final rejection,
page 6) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Hirabayashi to include releasable
attachment means such as taught by Sakakida in order to attach
the tether (16) of Hirabayashi “using equivalent structure in
the art.” While we find this statement of the rejection to be
somewhat cryptic, we note that the examiner provides further
explanation
on page 7 of the answer, where it is noted that the skilled
artisan would have found it obvious
to use a tab receiving the bolt on the end
of the strap as taught by Sakakida et al,
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
10
as the references as a whole would teach
the artisan that such a tab may be used in
the air bag art with a nut and bolt
connection. Such a structure would be
equivalent [to] the nut and bolt
arrangement of Hirabayashi.
Thus, it appears to be the examiner’s position that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to provide tabs like those seen in Figure 10 of Sakakida (on
the tethers (151)) on the ends of the tether strap (16) in
Hirabayashi where the strap (16) is attached to the housing
base plate (6) by bolts (18) and nuts received thereon. Even
if this combination were made, we fail to see that the subject
matter set forth in appellants’ claims 1, 3 and 5, and claims
8, 10 and 12, would have in any way been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art based on the applied references.
The connection focussed on by the examiner in this rejection
is that between the tether of Hirabayashi and the airbag
housing, not the connection between the tether and the cover
as is defined in the claims on appeal. The connection in
Hirabayashi between the cover (9) and the
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
11
tether strap (16) is a sewn connection at the middle part of
the strap (see Hirabayashi, col. 3, lines 5-8). Since we
agree with appellants that the collective teachings of
Hirabayashi and Sakakida as applied by the examiner, or
otherwise, would not render obvious the subject matter of
claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 on appeal, it follows that we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of those claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have additionally reviewed the teachings of
Seizert and MacFadden relied upon by the examiner in the
rejection of dependent claims 4, 11, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, however, we find nothing in these added references
which provides for that which we have found above to be
lacking in Sakakida or in Hirabayashi and Sakakida considered
together. In addition, we agree with appellants (brief, pages
12-13) that the mounting bracket used in MacFadden for
mounting parts, such as electrical units of a radio set, to an
underlying support (2), is non-analogous art with regard to
the tether/strap connections of the airbag systems of
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
12
appellants and Sakakida. Accordingly the examiner’s
rejections of claims 4, 11, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
will likewise not be sustained.
Turning to the last of the examiner's rejections,
that of dependent claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of MacFadden, we are
at somewhat of a loss to understand exactly what the
examiner’s position is here given that neither of the
independent claims 1 and 8, or intervening dependent claims 3
and 10 are rejected on the combination of prior art applied
against dependent claims 6, 7, 13 and 14. We assume for
purposes of this appeal that all of the limitations of claims
1, 3, 6 and 7, and claims 8, 10, 13 and 14 are considered by
the examiner to be present in the combination of Rogers and
MacFadden.
In this instance, we again note our agreement with
appellants that MacFadden is non-analogous art. Moreover,
even if MacFadden were to be considered to be analogous art,
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
13
after reviewing the rejection as explained by the examiner on
pages 10-12 of the answer, we find the examiner’s position
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to replace the permanent riveted connection between
the bar (34), tether (30) and cover (22) in Rogers with a
readily disconnect- able snap fastening connection means as in
MacFadden to be
untenable and based on hindsight derived from appellants’ own
teachings. For those reasons, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Sakakida, and the decision rejecting claims 3 through 7 and 10
through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
14
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CEF:psb
Appeal No. 1997-0262
Application 08/286,795
15
Sally J. Brown
Autoliv ASP, Inc.
3350 Airport Road
Ogden, UT 84405