Ex Parte Heinz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 28, 2003

09080207 (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 2003)

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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MARTIN HEINZ
__________
Appeal No. 2003-0417
Application 09/080,207
___________
HEARD: May 07, 2003
___________
Before ABRAMS, MCQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
Martin Heinz appeals from the final rejection of claims 5
through 7, 15 through 18 and 23 through 28, all of the claims
pending in the application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “a side impact protection device
for an occupant of a vehicle” (specification, page 1).
Appeal No. 2003-0417
Application 09/080,207
1 An English language translation of this reference,
prepared on behalf of the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, is appended hereto.
2
Representative claim 23 reads as follows:
23. A side impact protection device for a passenger of a
vehicle, comprising:
a housing, fastened in a side door of the vehicle,
a gas generator held in the housing,
an air bag which can be inflated by the gas generator, and

a partition, providing a barrier effect for a gas flow
emerging from the gas generator, provided within the air bag,
said partition including a main flow-through opening through
which gas can flow,
wherein the gas generator, connected with the air bag,
extends along a longitudinal axis of the gas generator, and
wherein a lower boundary edge of the air bag, in an unfolded
mounted position, extends at an angle, which is not equal to
zero, with respect to the longitudinal axis of the gas generator
so that, during inflation, the air bag is rotatable through the
angle in relation to the longitudinal axis into an inflated
operating position providing ideal protection for the passenger.
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Wipasuramonton et al. 5,615,909 Apr. 01, 1997
(Wipasuramonton)
Heinz et al., German 4,430,412 Oct. 12, 1995
Patent Document
(Heinz)1
Appeal No. 2003-0417
Application 09/080,207
2 Appended to the brief is an English language translation
of the Heinz reference prepared by the appellant.
3
THE REJECTION
Claims 5 through 7, 15 through 18 and 23 through 28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Heinz in view of Wipasuramonton.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
27) and to the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.
19 and 28) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of the rejection.2
DISCUSSION
Heinz, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a side
impact protection device 9 mounted within a vehicle door 8. The
device comprises an inflatable air bag 16, a filling device 15 in
the form of a gas generator 17, and a fill opening 21 in the air
bag communicating with the gas generator. The air bag includes
two chambers 22 and 23 partially separated by rebound straps 20
arranged to control the inflation of the chambers in accordance
with the sequence in which a passenger’s body typically will hit
the door in reaction to a side impact, i.e., the chamber 22
facing the passenger’s pelvis and chest area will inflate before
the chamber 23 facing the passenger’s head area. In this way,
Appeal No. 2003-0417
Application 09/080,207
4
the air bag effectively protects the passenger prior to full
inflation.
As conceded by the examiner (see page 2 in the final
rejection), the Heinz air bag does not respond to the limitations
in independent claim 23, and the corresponding limitations in
independent claim 26, calling for the lower boundary edge of the
air bag, in an unfolded mounted position, to extend at an angle
not equal to zero with respect to the longitudinal axis of the
gas generator so that during inflation the air bag is rotatable
through the angle in relation to the longitudinal axis into an
inflated operating position providing ideal protection for the
passenger. As disclosed in the underlying specification and set
forth in claim 26, the rotation stems from torque generated by
gas flow against the partition in the air bag. Setting the lower
boundary edge of the air bag in an unfolded mounted position at
an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the gas
generator compensates for the rotation to bring the air bag into
the ideal inflated operating position.
Wipasuramonton discloses a side impact protection device 80
mounted on the upper end of a vehicle seatback 22 reclined at an
angle of about 25° from the vertical. The device comprises a
housing 82, an inflator 84 and an air bag 90. The air bag, which
is configured to mirror and protect the neck and head of a
Appeal No. 2003-0417
Application 09/080,207
5
passenger, includes an elongate neck portion 130 and a body
portion 140 extending therefrom at an angle of from about 30° to
70°. When inflated, the neck portion extends forward at an angle
of about 65° above the horizontal and at an angle of about 3°
outward from the front-to-back axis of the vehicle. During
inflation, the air bag temporarily deploys in a curvilinear
rainbow pattern due to its configuration and the manner in which
it is folded within the housing (see Figure 10, and column 6,
line 57, through column 7, line 55).
In proposing to combine Heinz and Wipasuramonton to reject
claims 23 and 26, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify Heinz to mount the air bag at different
angles to account for various forces and moments on the
air bag when being inflated, as taught by
Wipasuramonton et al., in order to have the air bag
“lie adjacent to the head and neck of an upright seated
occupant” (Wipasuramonton et al., col. 8, line 3) when
inflated, and thus serve its intended purpose of
protecting the occupant [final rejection, page 3].
Neither Heinz nor Wipasuramonton, however, provides any
indication that the air bag disclosed therein will fail to assume
an ideal protective position in its inflated operating condition.
While recognizing that air bag 90 will inflate in a curvilinear
manner due to its configuration and manner of folding,
Wipasuramonton characterizes the change in inflation direction as
Appeal No. 2003-0417
Application 09/080,207
6
temporary, and shows no concern that any resulting, and
presumably temporary, rotation of the air bag will be
deleterious. Indeed, Wipasuramonton does not even mention such
rotation. Thus, the rationale advanced by the examiner to
justify the proposed modification of Heinz in view of
Wipasuramonton finds no support in the fair teachings of these
references, and appears instead to stem from impermissible
hindsight. Moreover, given the differences in their
construction, it would be unduly speculative to associate a
perceived rotation problem in the air bag disclosed by
Wipasuramonton with the air bag disclosed by Heinz.
Thus, the combined teachings of Heinz and Wipasuramonton do
not justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences
between the subject matter recited in claims 23 and 26 and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
claims 23 and 26, and dependent claims 5 through 7, 15 through
18, 24, 25, 27 and 28, as being unpatentable over Heinz in view
of Wipasuramonton.
Appeal No. 2003-0417
Application 09/080,207
7
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 5 through 7,
15 through 18 and 23 through 28 is reversed.
REVERSED
Neal E. Abrams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
John P. McQuade ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Jeffrey V. Nase )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/dym
Appeal No. 2003-0417
Application 09/080,207
8
Evenson McKeown Edwards & Lenehan
1200 G Street, N.W. Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005