Ex Parte Hordos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2014

11604628 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014)

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.
11/604,628 11/27/2006 Deborah L. Hordos 5702-01135 3525
7590 10/24/2014
L.C. Begin & Associates, PLLC
510 Highland Avenue
PMB 403
Milford, MI 48381
EXAMINER
WILHELM, TIMOTHY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte DEBORAH L. HORDOS
________________

Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final
rejection of claims 1‒15. App. Br. 1, 5. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant’s counsel presented oral argument on September
23, 2014. We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to gas generating
systems and, more particularly, to gas generators used in vehicle occupant
protection systems and related components, such as seatbelt pretensioners.”
Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

2

Spec. 1.1 Independent system claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. A gas generating system comprising:
a pyrotechnic gas generator for production of gas; and
a gas generating composition contained within said
pyrotechnic gas generator; and
molecular sieve in operable communication with said gas
generating composition wherein said molecular sieve is
provided in an amount at least 1% by weight of the gas
generating composition.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Dunne US 6,251,200 B1 June 26, 2001
Blomquist US 6,513,834 B1 Feb. 4, 2003

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4‒8, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Dunne. Ans. 4.
Claims 1‒15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blomquist and Dunne. Ans. 5.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4‒8, 10, 14, and 15
as being anticipated by Dunne
Appellant presents separate arguments for claim 1 (App. Br. 9‒11),
claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 14 (App. Br. 11), claim 6 (App. Br. 12), claim 8 (App.
Br. 12‒14), claim 15 (App. Br. 15), and claim 10 (App. Br. 15‒17). We
address Appellant’s arguments as presented.

1 Appellant’s Specification does not provide line or paragraph numbering
and, accordingly, reference will only be made to the page number.
Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

3

Claim 1
Claim 1 requires “a pyrotechnic gas generator for production of gas.”
Appellant contends that “Dunne describes the inflators of his invention as
hybrid inflators and compares them to pyrotechnic devices, thereby
distinguishing between a pyrotechnic device or inflator, and the hybrid
inflators that are the subject of his invention.” App. Br. 9 (referencing
Dunne 7:40‒50); see also Reply Br. 1‒3. In short, Appellant contends that
“Dunne describes a hybrid inflator” (App. Br. 9) and not a “pyrotechnic gas
generator” as claimed.
The portion of Dunne referenced by Appellant supra teaches “the
advantage of combining the gas storage of zeolite adsorbents and the use of
pyrotechnic compounds in a hybrid gas generator.” Dunne 7:43‒45. Dunne
addresses these hybrid gas generators stating that they can deliver gas at a
temperature that is lower than that “delivered by a solely pyrotechnic
device.” Dunne 7:46‒50. Based on this, Appellant contends that “[i]t
should be emphasized that as described by Dunne and as known in the art, a
gas generator cannot be a hybrid gas generator and at the same time be a
pyrotechnic gas generator.” App. Br. 9‒10; see also Reply Br. 2 and Record
of Oral Hearing held September 23, 2014, generally. Further, Appellant
contends that “Dunne also clearly distinguishes a stored gas inflator and a
pyrotechnic inflator, from the hybrid inflators of his invention.” App. Br.
10.
“[T]he [E]xaminer notes that [A]ppellant’s claim 1 is merely directed
to ‘[a] gas generating system comprising: a pyrotechnic gas generator…’”
and as such, this claim 1 “does not preclude a gas generator as taught by
Dunne” because “Dunne explicitly discloses a gas generating system
Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

4

comprising a pyrotechnic gas generator, and the fact that it also uses stored
gas [from the sieve] does not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 102(b).”
Ans. 6; see also Dunne 4:26‒28.
Dunne states that “[t]he present invention is directed to the cooling of
gases generated by airbag inflators which employ pyrotechnics to provide a
generated gas to inflate the airbag.” Dunne 4:26‒28. Dunne further
discloses that “[i]n one embodiment, the present invention is an explosive
airbag inflator comprising a pyrotechnic to produce a generated gas and a
zeolite molecular sieve which was pre-loaded with a stored gas.” Dunne
3:21‒24. Even that portion of Dunne relied on by Appellant discloses that
Dunne distinguishes between “the gas storage of zeolite adsorbents” and
“the use of pyrotechnic compounds” which are combined together in
Dunne’s “hybrid gas generator.”2 Dunne 7:43‒45. Hence, it would appear
that Dunne’s hybrid gas generator is a pyrotechnic gas generator combined
with a zeolite adsorber containing stored gas.3
Appellant’s Specification does not explicitly define the claim term
“pyrotechnic gas generator” or the term “hybrid gas generator” to clearly
indicate what each term means. This may be due to Appellant’s contentions
that these terms are “known in the art.” App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2; see also
Record of Oral Hearing held September 23, 2014, generally. For

2 “The following examples are meant to illustrate the advantage of
combining the gas storage of zeolite adsorbents and the use of pyrotechnic
compounds in a hybrid gas generator for inflating airbags.” Dunne 7:43–45.
3 “The results of both laboratory evaluations using stored gas on zeolite
molecular sieve in rapid depressurization tests and engineering simulation of
stored gas and pyrotechnic gas inflators show an advantage for combining
the functions of gas storage by zeolite adsorbents with the gas and heat
releases of pyrotechnic compounds.” Dunne 7:9–14.
Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

5

documentary support, Appellant relies on Dunne but the above passages in
Dunne do not define a “pyrotechnic” and a “hybrid” gas generator as being
“by definition mutually exclusive” as asserted by Appellant (Reply Br. 4).
We also look to Appellant’s Specification for guidance and
Appellant’s Specification states that “[g]as generators used in seatbelt
pretensioners are known as micro gas generators.” Spec. 1. Appellant’s
Specification explains that “[m]icro gas generators generally contain an
initiator including an initiator charge, a header or initiator holder in which
the initiator is received and secured therein, and a gas generant composition
which ignites and burns in response to ignition of the initiator to produce
gases.” Spec. 1. Appellant does not explain how Dunne’s discussion of
pyrotechnic gas generators4 or Dunne’s Figure 1 fails to meet this criterion
for a micro gas generator. In fact, Appellant acknowledges that Dunne
provides “a recitation of a prior art pyrotechnic inflator or gas generator” but
nevertheless contends that this discussion does not address “a gas generator
made in accordance with the invention of Dunne” (i.e., a hybrid generator).
Reply Br. 2. In short, Appellant does not persuasively explain how Dunne’s
gas generator that relies on pyrotechnics to generate gas (Dunne 3:21‒49,
4:26‒42, 5:4‒7) is not a teaching of a pyrotechnic gas generator. Further,
Appellant does not explain how Dunne’s hybrid gas generator does not,
nevertheless, incorporate a pyrotechnic gas generator therein. See, e.g.,
Dunne 7:43‒45.

4 Dunne explains that “[w]hen pyrotechnics are detonated, they produce a
generated gas at high temperatures” and references U.S. Patent No.
3,912,561 for disclosing a “gas generating pyrotechnic composition” whose
contents “are herein incorporated by reference.” Dunne 4:26–42.
Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

6

Appellant further contends that “Dunne does not teach a pyrotechnic
inflator with molecular sieve in operable communication to the gas
generating composition” as claimed. App. Br. 11. However, Dunne
illustrates and states that “[a] layer of zeolite particles 30 is disposed above
the layer of pyrotechnic 25.” Dunne 7:30–31; Fig. 1. As such, Appellant
does not explain how Dunne’s zeolite sieve particles are not in “operable
communication with said gas generating composition” as claimed.
Further, Appellant asserts that “[h]ybrid inflators necessarily employ
stored gas” (App. Br. 11) which, even if true, this does not detract from the
fact that the hybrid inflator described in Dunne employs a pyrotechnic gas
generator.
Appellant also “traverses the examiner’s assertion that column 5, lines
4-5 describes Dunne’s innovation.” Reply Br. 2–3. This is because this
portion of Dunne “is simply a description of a prior art pyrotechnic gas
generator as fully discussed above.” Reply Br. 2. The Examiner references
this portion of Dunne, along with Dunne’s Field of the Invention (the
invention relates “more particularly, to pyrotechnic gas generator units”), as
indicative that the invention disclosed in Dunne is a pyrotechnic gas
generator. Ans. 6‒7; Dunne 1:6‒8; Reply Br. 1‒2. Hence, Appellant’s
contention that Dunne fails to disclose a pyrotechnic gas generator is not
persuasive.
Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive the Examiner
erred in finding that Dunne anticipates claim 1.
Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

7

Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 14
Appellant argues claims 2, 4, 5, 7 and 14 together. App. Br. 11. We
select claim 2 as representative with claims 4, 5, 7 and 14 standing or falling
with claim 2. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and includes the additional limitation
of “wherein said molecular sieve is positioned within said gas generator but
separate from said gas generating composition.” Appellant repeats the
argument addressed above, i.e., “Dunne does not teach a ‘pyrotechnic gas
generator’ as defined in the present application, but instead teaches a ‘hybrid
inflator.’” App. Br. 11. This argument is not persuasive for reasons
previously stated. Appellant does not address the additional limitation in
claim 2 or explain, other than relying on the arguments and distinctions as
above, why this additional limitation is patentable over Dunne or otherwise
not disclosed in Dunne Figure 1 or column 7, lines 23–34 thereof. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 14.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and includes the additional limitation
wherein “said molecular sieve is mixed within the gas generating
composition.” Appellant repeats the same non-persuasive arguments
addressed supra with respect to claim 1 and also contends that “Dunne does
not teach [a] molecular sieve mixed within the gas generating composition”
as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 4–5. The Examiner
finds this teaching in Dunne by explaining that Dunne discloses a
composition “that, upon activation of the pyrotechnic gas generator,
generates gas that is blended and mixed with the molecular sieve.” Ans. 8‒
9.
Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

8

We disagree with the Examiner’s analysis because claim 6 is directed
to a sieve wherein the “sieve is mixed within the gas generating
composition.” Here, Dunne Figure 1 clearly illustrates sieve 30 layered on
top of, not intermixed with, pyrotechnic 25. See also Dunne 7:28‒32 (“A
layer of zeolite particles 30 is disposed above the layer of pyrotechnic 25”).
Additionally, the Examiner’s rationale that the generated gas “is blended and
mixed” does not address the limitation of the sieve being “mixed within the
gas generating composition.” Hence, the Examiner fails to make a prima
facie case of anticipation in that the Examiner fails to indicate where the
limitation of claim 6 is “expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 6.
Claim 8
Independent claim 8 also includes the limitation of a gas generating
composition “blended and mixed with [the] molecular sieve.” Appellant
contends that this is not disclosed in Dunne. App. Br. 13. The Examiner
relies on the same analysis discussed above with respect to claim 6. Ans. 8‒
9. For similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 8.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 8 and Appellant separately argues claim
15. App. Br. 15. We reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim
15 for the reasons discussed above regarding parent claim 8.

Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

9

Claim 10
With respect to independent claim 10, Appellant repeats many of the
foregoing unpersuasive arguments made with respect to claim 1. App. Br.
16‒17. Claim 10 also includes the limitation that “said gas generating
composition is combusted to produce the only source of gas generated.” On
this point, Appellant contends that “the stored gas within the hybrid
inflators of Dunne would result in a gas source in addition to that
provided by combustion of the pyrotechnic charge. As such, there would
be more than one source of gas, in contravention of the language of claim
10.” App. Br. 17. However, Appellant repeatedly contends that the gas
found in Dunne’s sieve is “stored gas,” not “generated gas.” See Appeal
Brief generally; see also Dunne 3:21‒24, 3:44‒48 which also distinguishes
between a generated gas and a stored gas. See also Ans. 9. As such,
Appellant does not identify any other source of “generated gas” in Dunne
other than the gas generated by the pyrotechnic gas generator.
Further, claim 10 includes a limitation directed to “a gas generating
composition contained within said gas generator.” As discussed supra,
Appellant does not explain how Dunne’s Figure 1 fails to disclose this
limitation. See also Dunne 7:23‒34. Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions
are not persuasive of Examiner error and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 10 as being anticipated by Dunne.
The rejection of claims 1‒15
as being unpatentable over Blomquist and Dunne
Here, the Examiner primarily relies on Blomquist for disclosing the
limitations of claims 1‒15 but relies on Dunne for disclosing a molecular
sieve along with the disclosure of other limitations recited. Ans. 5‒6.
Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

10

Regarding claim 1, Appellant repeats contentions to the effect that
“[n]either Blomquist nor Dunne when taken alone or in combination
teach, describe, or suggest a ‘pyrotechnic gas generator’ for production
of gas (claim 1).” 5 App. Br. 19‒23; see also Reply Br. 5. Appellant’s
arguments on this topic are not persuasive for reasons previously expressed.
Appellant also contends that “it would not have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine the molecular sieve within a
pyrotechnic gas generator as taught by Blomquist for example, because there
is no suggestion to use the molecular sieve unless stored gas is also included
within the molecular sieve.” App. Br. 20. This contention is not persuasive
in that Dunne discloses the combination of the two components. Dunne
3:21‒24; 7:43‒45.
Appellant also alleges that the “teaching or suggestion to make the
claimed combination and the reasonable expectation of success must both be
found in the prior art, not in [Appellant’s] disclosure.” App. Br. 22.
Appellant references a pre-KSR6 case for support and does not acknowledge
that KSR changed this understanding. App. Br. 22. In short, Appellant does
not explain how the Examiner’s stated rationale7 fails to provide “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Appellant’s repeated contentions

5 Notably, Appellant does not indicate how or why the Examiner’s reliance
on the teachings of Blomquist (Ans. 5) is in error.
6 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
7 “[I]t would have been obvious . . . to modify the gas generator of
Blomquist with the teaching[s] of Dunne’s molecular sieve to reduce the
potential hazard to a driver or passenger of a vehicle by reducing the
temperature of the gases generated by an inflator (column 2, lines 56-59).”
Ans. 5–6.
Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

11

addressing Dunne with respect to claim 1 are not persuasive of Examiner
error and accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
being obvious over Blomquist and Dunne.
Regarding claims 2‒5, 7, 11, and 14, Appellant repeats the arguments
previously presented with respect to claim 1 above. App. Br. 23. Appellant
does not address their additional limitations and, in view of our previous
analysis, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2‒5, 7, 11, and 14.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the Examiner finds this
limitation disclosed via Dunne’s Figure 1 in that the sieve is “in vapor
communication with said gas generating composition” and that the sieve “is
integrated within the gas generating composition in the gas generator.” Ans.
5. As above, the Examiner’s reliance on Dunne’s Figure 1 illustrating their
layering one atop the other (see Dunne 7:23–34) is not considered a
sufficient rationale, as required by KSR, for a teaching or suggestion of their
being mixed together. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as
being obvious over Blomquist and Dunne.
Regarding claims 8 (containing the “blended and mixed” limitation),
and its dependent claims 9, 12, and 15, the same rationale applied above
with respect to claim 6 is equally applicable here. We likewise reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 12, and 15 as being obvious over
Blomquist and Dunne.
Regarding Claim 10 (“the only source of gas generated”), Appellant
repeats the arguments previously made involving both Blomquist and
Dunne. App. Br. 28‒30. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons
previously stated and accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 10 as being obvious over Blomquist and Dunne.
Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

12

Claim 13 depends from claim 10 and includes the additional limitation
“wherein said gas generant composition further comprises an oxidizer
selected from the group consisting of strontium nitrate and potassium
perchlorate.” Appellant repeats the arguments presented with respect to
parent claim 10 and Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding
that Blomquist discloses a “gas generant 18 comprising an oxidizer selected
from the group comprising strontium nitrate and potassium perchlorate
(column 5, lines 7-20).” Ans. 5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 13 as being obvious over Blomquist and Dunne.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 14 as being
anticipated by Dunne is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 8, and 15 as being anticipated
by Dunne is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒5, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14 as being
unpatentable over Blomquist and Dunne is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 8, 9, 12, and 15 as being
unpatentable over Blomquist and Dunne is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2012-006146
Application 11/604,628

13

hh