Ex Parte Inuzuka et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 11, 2009

10854309 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KOJI INUZUKA and KOJI TANAKA
____________________

Appeal 2009-001900
Application 10/854,309
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: August 11, 2009
____________________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Koji Inuzuka and Koji Tanaka (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2009-001900
Application 10/854,309

2
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention pertains to a seatbelt retractor capable
of controlling the belt tension with a motor. Spec. 1, ll. 5-10. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A seatbelt retractor comprising:
a spool for winding a seatbelt,
a locking mechanism connected to the spool and having a
locking member rotatable together with the spool in a normal
condition and being prevented from rotating in a seatbelt-
withdrawing direction in an emergency condition,
an energy-absorbing mechanism interposed between the
spool and the locking member for absorbing shock energy
exerted on the seatbelt through a passenger when the spool
rotates in the seatbelt-withdrawing direction relative to the
locking member in the emergency condition,
a motor for generating power to rotate the spool, and
a power transmission mechanism connected to the
locking mechanism for transmitting the power of the motor to
the spool through the power transmission mechanism, the
locking member, and the energy-absorbing mechanism.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hamaue US 5,087,075 Feb. 11, 1992
(filed Oct. 30, 1990)
Tanji US 2003/0122020 A1 July 3, 2003
(filed Dec. 24, 2002)
Appeal 2009-001900
Application 10/854,309

3

The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
and (e) as being anticipated by Tanji; and
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tanji and Hamaue.

ISSUE
The Examiner found that Tanji discloses a power transmission
mechanism for transmitting the motor’s power to the spool through the
locking member (Tanji’s internal gear 18). See Ans. 4-5, 8. Appellants
argue that, in Tanji, the motor’s power is not transmitted through internal
gear 18. Therefore, the issue on appeal is:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Tanji
discloses a power transmission mechanism for transmitting the motor’s
power through a locking member?

OPINION
Claim 1 recites “a power transmission mechanism connected to the
locking mechanism for transmitting the power of the motor to the spool
through the power transmission mechanism, the locking member, and the
energy-absorbing mechanism.” The remaining claims on appeal depend
from claim 1, and therefore also require the power transmission mechanism.
The Examiner found that Tanji’s internal gear 18 corresponds to the
recited locking member, and that Tanji discloses a power transmission
mechanism using connecting gear 11 and intermediate reduction gear 12.
Appeal 2009-001900
Application 10/854,309

4
Ans. 3-4, 5; see Tanji 4, paras. [0056], [0058]. The Examiner utilizes an
annotated version of Tanji’s Figure 7 to illustrate the findings as to the
power transmission path from the motor to the spool. Ans. 4-5, 8. However,
Figure 7 depicts the state in which the motor 8, connecting gear 11, and
intermediate reduction gear 12 are not rotating. See Tanji 4, para. [0058];
fig. 7 (lacking rotation direction arrows for elements 8, 11 and 12). In this
state, the motor and its gear train (elements 10 through 13) are disconnected
from the belt spool 4, and therefore do not transmit power to the spool.
Tanji 4, paras. [0056] – [0059]. When the motor is driven in the seatbelt
winding direction, rotation of the gear train (specifically, connecting gear
11) causes stopping claw 21a to engage a ratchet tooth on internal gear 18,
thereby stopping the rotation of internal gear 18. Id. at 4, para. [0060] - 5,
para. [0063]. When internal gear 18 stops rotating, motor power is
transmitted to the spool by, inter alia, planetary gears 16 running along the
internal teeth of the internal gear 18. Id. at 5, paras. [0064] – [0065]. Thus,
internal gear 18 does not itself transmit power to the spool, but rather serves
as a fixed body within which the power-transmitting planetary gears rotate.
In light of this, we cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Tanji as disclosing a
mechanism configured so as to transmit power through a locking member.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the anticipation rejection of
claim 1 as well as the rejection of its dependent claims 2-4 and 7-8.
In rejecting claim 6, which depends from claim 1, as obvious over
Tanji and Hamaue, the Examiner does not rely on Hamaue in any manner
that cures the deficiency of the underlying rejection of claim 1. Thus, we
also reverse the rejection of claim 6.
Appeal 2009-001900
Application 10/854,309

5

CONCLUSION
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Tanji discloses a power transmission mechanism for
transmitting the motor’s power through a locking member.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 and 6-8 is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh

HAUPTMAN KANESAKA & BERNER
SUITE 300
1700 DIAGONAL ROAD
ALEXANDRIA VA 22314