Ex parte HENSELER et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 1998

08076789 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 15, 1993. 1
1
Paper No. 22
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte WOLFGANG HENSELER,
MANFRED MULLER, EGON KATZ,
GUIDO WETZEL AND LUIGI BRAMBILLA
______________
Appeal No. 95-2124
Application 08/076,7891
_______________
HEARD: MARCH 3, 1998
_______________
Before COHEN, PATE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the examiner’s refusal to allow
claims 3 and 5, the only remaining claims in the application.
The claimed invention is directed to an automotive airbag
which is encased in a central region by a synthetic film casing.
The casing is composed of a tough, plastically deformably
Appeal No. 95-2124
Application 08/076,789
2
synthetic film material which when subjected to forces from the
expanding airbag initially stretches, providing a growing
resistance to the expansion of the airbag. Subsequently, the
film is in an over-stretched condition and provides a slowly
declining resistance to expansion of the airbag. Lastly, the film
ruptures to allow the airbag to expand to its greatest extent.
Claim 5 reproduced below, is further illustrative of
the claimed subject matter.
5. Collision protection system for passengers of motor
vehicles comprising:
an airbag which is accommodated in a folded up storage
condition in a vehicle-side receptacle and which is automatically
expanded by an assigned gas generator in an event of an accident
to form an airbag cushion protecting a passenger, and
a casing at least partially enclosing the airbag in its
folded up storage condition, said casing serving to delay and
control the expansion of the airbag,
wherein said casing is composed of a tough plastically
deformable synthetic film material which, when subjected to
forces from the expanding airbag, initially stretches and
provides growing resistance to initial expansion of the airbag,
secondly stretches further in an overstretching phase and
provides slowly declining resistance to further expansion of the
airbag, and lastly provides release of resistance to expansion of
the airbag upon bursting of the film material.
The references of record relied upon as evidence of
obviousness are:
Bishop et al. (Bishop) 4,964,654 Oct. 23, 1990
Miller et al. (Miller) 5,004,226 Apr. 2, 1991
Appeal No. 95-2124
Application 08/076,789
3
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief, the
examiner’s answer and supplemental answer for the full details
thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have reached the determination that the
applied prior art does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of the claims on
appeal. Therefore, the rejections of the claims on appeal are
reversed. Our reasoning follows.
The examiner has rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bishop.
We are in agreement with the examiner that Bishop discloses
a casing 56 covering the airbag which is stored in a folded
condition. The following is Bishop’s disclosure with respect
to the casing 56:
The material (sack, band, etc.) 56 is chosen
of a material having a tensile strength
sufficient to maintain the bag 32 in its
predeployment condition. The strength of the
material 56 is such that during initial
deployment thereof, the deployment forces are
sufficient to rupture it thereby permitting
Appeal No. 95-2124
Application 08/076,789
4
the bag 32 to expand with negligible
restriction. The material used may be a
plastic film, cloth or spun bonded olefin
material such as that manufactured under the
name of TYVEK manufactured by DuPont. FIG.
4b schematically illustrates a front view of
the sub assembly 58 and in particular the
band or sack 56. To enhance deployment of
the air bag 32, the material 56 may include a
pre-weakened area such as a tear seam, heat
stress area or line of perforations all
generally designated by numeral 60. (Bishop,
column 4, lines 47-61).
As can readily be seen by the quoted portion, we do not agree
with the examiner’s finding of fact that Bishop discloses a
“soft plastic film,” nor the examiner’s finding that such a film
will be plastically deformable. It is clear from the disclosure
of Bishop that the material 56 is to afford negligible
restriction to the expanding airbag. Bishop further discloses
that the material 56 may be pre-weakened to afford this
negligible restriction. Therefore, it is our finding that the
covering material 56 of Bishop provides no material restriction
to the airbag expansion, nor would it have been obvious to
provide any material restriction to an airbag expansion from the
teaching of Bishop.
The appellants and the examiner both discuss an inherency
argument respecting whether Bishop would inherently “behave as
claimed.” Our finding that Bishop affords only negligible
Appeal No. 95-2124
Application 08/076,789
5
restriction to Bishop’s expanding airbag negates any proper
inherency argument based on Bishop.
The examiner has rejected dependent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Bishop in view of Miller. Miller
discloses an airbag occupant restraint system wherein the bag is
maintained in a folded position by a band of steel. The band of
steel is generally in an hourglass shape so that the airbag is
allowed to expand laterally at the 3 and 9 o’clock peripheral
positions before the central portion of the airbag is allowed to
expand. Here again, as in Bishop, there is no disclosure of the
steel band plastically deforming and meeting the three stages of
appellants’ claimed airbag expansion as recited in parent claim
5. The disclosure in Miller is that the steel band ruptures at
its juncture 86 when the pressure in the bag reaches a predeter-
mined limit such as 25 psi. Therefore, the disclosure of Bishop
does not make up for the shortcomings of the disclosure in Miller
in that neither reference discloses the plastic deformation
required by appellants’ claim 5. Therefore, the references
Miller and Bishop and the combined teachings thereof do not
establish a prima facie case with respect to the subject matter
of either claim 5 or claim 3.
Appeal No. 95-2124
Application 08/076,789
6
Therefore, the rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
Irwin Charles Cohen )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
William F. Pate, III ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Jeffrey V. Nase )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 95-2124
Application 08/076,789
7
Evenson, McKeown, Edwards
& Lenahan
1200 G Street, N.W.
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
WFP/cam