Ex Parte Kai et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2006

09974262 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte TAKESHI KAI,
TOSHIYA SAKAI, HIROYUKI SAITOH
and MASAHIRO SATO

____________

Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

_____________

DECIDED: AUGUST 24, 2006
_____________

Before GARRIS, WARREN, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative
Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal, which involves claims 1-2,
5-12, and 18-20.
We AFFIRM.
The claimed invention is directed to an airbag device
designed so that, upon collision of a vehicle, an airbag is
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

deployed into a vehicle compartment through an opening resulting
from the breaking of a cover member mounted on a steering wheel.
(Specification, page 1, lines 5-8).
Further details regarding this subject matter are set forth
in representative independent claims 1 and 7 which read as
follows:
1. An air bag device for a vehicle comprising:

an air bag module including an air bag and an inflator
connected to each other,

a module-supporting member mounted at a central portion of
a steering wheel for supporting said air bag module,

a cover member slidably supported on the module-supporting
member to cover said air bag module,

a switch which operates when the cover member is pushed and
slid relative to the module-supporting member,

groove-shaped tear lines formed in an inner surface of the
cover member, so that said air bag, as expanded by a high-
pressure gas generated by said inflator upon collision of the
vehicle breaks the cover member along the tear lines to deploy
into a passenger compartment of the vehicle, and

said cover member has at least one independent ridge
integrally formed on the inner surface thereof astride at least
one of the tear lines, said at least one ridge having a width
which is substantially equal to or larger than the width of said
one tear line over a major portion in the lengthwise direction
of the ridge.

7. A cover member for an air bag device disposed with a
steering wheel having an activating switch provided therewith,
the air bag device including an air bag module having an air bag
and an inflator connected to each other, and a module-supporting
2
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

member mounted at a central portion of the steering wheel for
supporting said air bag module, wherein:

said cover member is slidably supported on the module-
supporting member to cover said air bag module and said switch,

said cover member operates said switch when the cover
member is pushed and slid relative to the module-supporting
member,

said cover member has groove-shaped tear lines formed in an
inner surface thereof to assure that said air bag reliably
breaks the cover member along the tear lines when it is inflated
by said inflator, and

said cover member has at least one independent rigidity
enhancing member integrally formed on the inner surface thereof
to assure sufficient rigidity of the cover member, said rigidity
enhancing member having a width which is substantially equal to
or larger than a width of said tear lines over a major portion
in the lengthwise direction of the rigidity enhancing member.

The references set forth below are relied upon by the
Examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Yokota 6,244,618 Jun. 12, 2001
Otsuka et al. (Otsuka)1 JP 11-139235 May 25, 1999
All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yokota in view of Otsuka.

1 Our understanding of this reference is based on the English
Translation of record.
3
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the Appellants and by the Examiner concerning these rejections,
we refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
respectively for a complete exposition thereof.

OPINION
For the reasons provided below, the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph rejection and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection are
sustained.
Regarding the § 103(a) rejection, Appellants indicate in
their brief that all the claims are argued separately. However,
as the Examiner indicates in his answer, only claims 2, 10, 19
and 20 are argued separately. Appellants do not challenge the
Examiner’s claim grouping in their reply brief. Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner’s grouping of the claims. The groupings
of the claims for this appeal are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 5-9, 11-12 and 18 stand or fall with claim 1,
2. Claims 2 and 10 are a separate grouping,
3. Claims 19 and 20 are a separate grouping.
We generally affirm for the reasons provided by the
Examiner in his answer. (Answer, pages 4-6). We provide the
4
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

additional discussion below to further respond to Appellants’
arguments made in the brief and the reply brief.

35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph Rejection
During prosecution, claims 1 and 7 were amended by
Appellants to include the following limitations: (1) the ridge
has a width “larger than the width of said one tear line” (claim
1) and (2) the rigidity enhancing member has a width “larger
than a width of said tear lines” (claim 7). The Examiner
contends that the above quoted language fails to satisfy the
§ 112 written description requirement. (Answer, pages 3 and 4).
Appellants argue that their Figures 5, 7, 9A and 9B closely
represent “in scale and appearance” the tear lines and ridges
formed on the inner surface of a steering wheel cover. (Brief,
page 10). From these figures, Appellants argue that the
relative dimensions of the tear lines and the ridges provide
support for the added claim language thereby satisfying the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. (Brief, page 10). Furthermore, the Appellants state
that they have never indicated that their drawings are not drawn
to scale and that if the drawings are not to scale, then the
dimensions would be equally out of proportion, such that size of
5
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

one component relative to the other is still accurate. (Brief,
pages 10-11). Appellants also indicate that, if a ruler is used
to measure the tear line widths and ridge widths in Figures 5,
7, 9A and 9B, then a range of approximate ridge widths results
(Figure 5: 4 mm, Figures 7 & 9A: 5 mm and Figure 9B: 7 mm).
According to Appellants, the measured widths of the tear lines
are relatively constant in Figures 5, 7, 9A and 9B (i.e.,)
(approximately 4.5 mm). (Reply Brief, page 2). These arguments
are unpersuasive.
Patent drawings do not define precise proportions of the
elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if
the specification is completely silent on the issue. Hockerson-
Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l., Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956,
55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Also, absent any written
description in the specification of quantitative values,
arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.
In re Wright, 59 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (C.C.P.A.
1977). See also, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 2125 (Rev. 3, August 2005).
Appellants concede that they have “never indicated that the
drawings are not drawn to scale. . . .” (Brief, page 10). More

6
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

importantly, Appellants do not indicate in their specification
that their figures are drawn to scale. In fact, Appellants’
specification is completely silent about the sizes of any
features shown in their drawings, but particularly the size of
the ridge width and the tear line width. Because the
specification is silent about quantitative values for the ridge
width and tear line width, Appellants’ arguments based on their
ruler measurements taken from the drawings are of “little
value.” Wright, 59 F.2d at 1127, 193 USPQ at 335. Moreover,
because the drawings are not disclosed as being to scale,
conclusions regarding the quantitative values of the measured
ridge width compared with the measured tear line width are
speculative at best.
For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the § 112, first
paragraph, lack of written description rejection.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection
The Examiner rejects all the claims as being obvious and
therefore unpatentable over Yokota in view of Otsuka. The
Examiner states that Yokota discloses an airbag device having
all the limitations in independent claims 1 and 7 except for an
airbag cover with either “at least one independent ridge” (claim
7
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

1) or “at least one independent rigidity enhancing member”
(claim 7). (Answer, page 3). As the Examiner states, Otsuka
teaches an airbag cover having a central “breakage part” (i.e.,
the here claimed “tear line”) 16a defined by “groove wall
surface” 19 and “breakage phase” 18 with “ribs” (i.e., the here
claimed “ridges”) 26 extending across the central “breakage
part.” (Answer, page 3). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been prima facie obvious to have modified Yokota’s airbag
cover with Otsuka’s rigidity enhancing “ribs” (i.e., “ridges”)
across the “breakage part” (i.e., “tear line”) because this
modification would increase the “rigidity of the cover and
prevents the cover from deforming when an occupant presses on
the cover.” (Answer, page 3). Moreover, the Examiner indicates
that Otsuka teaches that conventional airbag covers suffer from
the problem of insufficient rigidity when pushed on by a user,
and that providing the cover with the “ribs” (i.e., ridges) 26
solves this problem by increasing the rigidity of the cover.
(Answer, pages 4-5).
Appellants argue that the Examiner bases his § 103(a)
rejection upon impermissible hindsight, rather than the
teachings of the prior art. (Brief, page 11). However, as the
Examiner contends, Otsuka provides express motivation for the
8
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

combination with Yokota. (Answer, page 5). Otsuka teaches that
conventional airbag covers suffer from the problem of
insufficient rigidity when pressed upon (English Translation,
¶ [0008]), and that adding “ribs” (i.e., ridges) to the
“breakage parts” (i.e., tear-lines) solves the lack of rigidity
problem. (English Translation, ¶¶ [0013], [0015], [0017],
[0050]). One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
invention was made, given Otsuka’s teaching that adding “ribs”
(i.e., ridges) to “breakage parts” (i.e., tear lines) enhances
the rigidity thereof, would have been motivated to add such
“ribs” (i.e., ridges) to the tear lines in Yokota’s airbag cover
to enhance and control the rigidity thereof. The Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion is based on the explicit teachings of
Otsuka, not impermissible hindsight.
Appellants’ argument regarding the width and shape of
Otsuka’s tear lines as compared to Yokota’s tear lines is not
persuasive. Appellants argue that Yokota’s narrow tear lines
are a series of interconnected vertical, horizontal and curved
sections as shown in Yokota’s figure 4, whereas Otsuka’s wide
recess region 23 extends linearly through the center of the
rectangularly shaped cover. (Brief, page 12). Appellants
conclude that there would not have been motivation to have
9
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

combined Otsuka with Yokota because the “reason(s) for the
central wide linear fracture section [i.e., “recess region” in
Otsuka] 23 and the side fracture sections [i.e., “breakage
parts” in Otsuka] 16b . . . are not present in Yokota’s cover,
i.e., it is not rectangular and does not include fracture
sections formed at the bases of downwardly extending side
walls.” (Brief, page 12). However, as the Examiner states in
his answer, the combination of Otsuka with Yokota is not based
on the shape of the Otsuka’s breakage parts (i.e., tear lines)
or Yokota’s tear lines, but on the express teaching of Otsuka
that adding “ribs” (i.e., ridges) to “breakage parts” (i.e.,
tear lines) enhances the rigidity thereof. (English Translation,
¶¶ [0013], [0015], [0017], [0050]; Answer, page 5).
Appellants argue that Otsuka’s breakage-part (i.e., tear
line) pattern is only meant for passenger-side airbag covers.
(Reply Brief, page 4). Appellants indicate that since Otsuka’s
breakage-part (i.e., tear line) pattern is wide and “H”-shaped
it is meant specifically for a rectangular passenger-side airbag
cover panel. (Reply brief, page 4). In view of Otsuka’s
teaching to use the disclosed panel for a passenger-side airbag
cover, Appellants conclude that Otsuka’s rectangular airbag
cover and breakage part pattern is “very distinct” from Yokota’s
10
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

triangular airbag cover and tear line pattern. (Reply Brief,
page 4).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. This is
because Otsuka teaches that his airbag cover can be used as a
steering wheel airbag cover (as well as a passenger-side air bag
cover) (English Translation, ¶ [0066]). Additionally, Otsuka’s
breakage-part (i.e., tear line) pattern is not limited to the
“H”-shape, but also may be “substantially U-shaped” (English
Translation, ¶ [0064]). We note that the upper portion of
Yokota’s tear line pattern shown in Figure 4 may be similarly
characterized as “substantially U-shaped.” The similarity in
the shape of the “breakage part” (i.e., tear line) pattern
between Otsuka and Yokota, coupled with Otsuka’s teaching to use
his cover with steering wheel mounted airbags, evinces that
Otsuka’s and Yokota’s airbag covers are not “very distinct” from
each other as Appellants allege. (Reply Brief, page 4). Rather,
in view of these similarities, Otsuka’s teaching to control
rigidity of the cover using ribs (i.e., ridges) and Otsuka’s
teaching to use his airbag cover with steering wheel mounted
airbags, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made would have combined Otsuka’s ribs with
11
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

Yokota’s steering wheel airbag cover to enhance the rigidity of
the cover.
Appellants also argue that the width of the ribs (i.e.,
ridges) in Otsuka do not have a width at least as large as the
“central fracture section (or tear lines) 23” (i.e., “recess
region” in Otsuka) which they reinforce. (Brief, pages 12-13).
Moreover, Otsuka’s ribs (i.e., ridges) are not “astride” one or
more breakage parts (i.e., tear lines). (Brief, page 13).
Appellants refer to Figure 4, to show that Otsuka’s ribs (i.e.,
ridges) 26 are flush with the inner surface of the cover, rather
than “astride” the breakage part (i.e., tear line). (Brief,
page 13). Appellants also indicate that a “tear line,” as
conventionally understood, would correspond to Otsuka’s recessed
region (23), not merely the breakage part (16a). (Brief, pages
13-14). Appellants refer to Yokota’s tear lines 47a and 47b to
show that a “tear line” is generally an overall weakened,
grooved area. Appellants conclude that based on the
conventional definition of “tear line” the Examiner’s
interpretation of the breakage part as corresponding to the
“tear line” is unreasonable in light of the Otsuka disclosure.
(Brief, page 14).
12
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

Based on Appellants’ specification and Otsuka’s disclosure,
we find that the Examiner properly construes breakage parts 16a
and 16b as “tear lines”, whereas Otsuka’s recess region 23 is
simply a depression used to aid in molding the tear lines.
(Otsuka, ¶¶ [0016], [0028], [0044]). Appellants indicate that
the prior art describes “tear lines” as brittle grooves that
provide an area on an airbag cover where breakage occurs when an
airbag is deployed. (Specification, page 1, lines 16-19).
Correspondingly, Otsuka refers to elements 16a and 16b as
“breakage parts.” (English Translation, ¶ [0005]). Moreover,
Otsuka describes that fracturing occurs along the “breakage
parts” when the airbag is deployed. (English Translation,
¶ [0005]). Otsuka also describes how the “breakage parts” 16a
and 16b combine to form “breakage part” 16, for the airbag
cover. (English Translation, ¶ [0005]). Moreover, breakage
parts 16a and 16b are the thinnest parts of the airbag cover.
(English Translation, ¶¶ [0042],[0046] and Figure 2; i.e.,
“breakage part” (16a) thickness “A” ranges from 0.6 to 1.2 mm
and “general thickness part” (24) thickness “C” may be 3.5 to
5.0 mm). Generally, fracturing occurs along the thinnest area
of a sheet of material, as this is the area with the highest
stress. Additionally, paragraphs [0016], [0028], [0044] of
13
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

Otsuka describe how ramp 22, of the recess region 23
“confuse[s]” the flow of the resin near the breakage part and
changes the orientation of the resin. Otsuka is clear that ramp
22 of the recessed region 23 is provided for a completely
different purpose (i.e., controlling resin flow in molding) than
a tear line (i.e., providing a fracture location on an airbag
cover).
Accordingly, the Examiner’s position that Otsuka’s breakage
parts 16a and 16b correspond to the here claimed “tear lines” is
reasonable and consistent with both Otsuka’s and Appellants’
disclosure.
Having determined the breakage parts 16a and 16b to
correspond to the claimed “tear lines,” both the claimed ridge
width and the “astride” limitations are satisfied by Otsuka.
Otsuka teaches that the rib (i.e., ridge) 26 may have a
thickness (i.e., width) of 2.0 mm or less. (English Translation,
¶ [0037], Figure 5, reference character “t1”). The width of the
breakage part (i.e., tear line) 16a is 0.5 to 4.0 mm. (English
Translation, ¶ [0042], Figure 2, reference character “X”). From
Otsuka’s teachings, the rib (i.e., ridge) width may be selected
such that it is larger than the breakage part (i.e., tear line)
14
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

width. In such circumstances, the claimed ridge width as
compared to tear line width limitation is satisfied.
Regarding the claimed “astride” limitation, as shown in
Otsuka’s Figures 4 and 5, the rib (i.e., ridge) 26 spans across
the full width of the breakage part (i.e., tear line) 16a and
extends beyond both sides of the breakage part (i.e., tear
line). Similar to the embodiment shown in Appellants’ Figure 6,
Otsuka’s rib (i.e., ridge) 26 is “astride” the breakage part
(i.e., tear line).
However, even if we take the claimed tear line to
correspond to Otsuka’s recessed region 23 as argued by
Appellants (Brief, pages 13-14), rib (i.e., ridge) 26 still
would satisfy the “astride” limitation in the sense that it
spans the entire width of the recess region 23. We observe that
the conventional definition of “astride” includes “spanning.”2
Rib (i.e., ridge) 26 spans recess region 23 because it has one
end touching one side of the recess region (i.e., the “tear
line” according to Appellants)(22a) and the other end touching
the second side of the recess region (i.e., the “tear line”
according to Appellants)(22a). (Otsuka, Figure 4).

2 Because Appellants have not defined the term “astride” in their
specification, we may look not only to the specification but also to a
dictionary to obtain the broadest reasonable meaning of the claim term.
Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d 1303, 1324, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2005).
15
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

Dependent claims 2 and 10 require “a groove [is] defined in
a side face of said ridge and extends to a bottom of said at
least one tear line” (claim 2), and “said ridge extends to the
bottom of said one tear line” (claim 10). The Examiner
indicates that Otsuka’s Figure 5 embodiment shows that the ribs
(i.e., ridges) 26 have breakage origin parts (i.e., grooves) 28
that extend to a bottom of the breaking part (i.e., tear line)
16a. (Answer, page 3).
Appellants argue that Otsuka’s ribs (i.e., ridges) do not
include a groove defined in a side face and extending to a
bottom of the breakage part (i.e., tear line) as claimed in
claims 2 and 10. (Brief, page 14). Appellants refer to Otsuka’s
Figures 1-4 to show that the breakage origin part 28 is a notch
that extends a short distance down the height of the rib (i.e.,
ridge) 26. (Brief, page 14). However, the Examiner expressly
states that he is not relying on Otsuka’s “notch” 28 embodiment
shown in Figure 4 to teach the features of claims 2 and 10.
(Answer, pages 5 and 6). Rather, the Examiner relies on
Otsuka’s Figure 5 to show that the side of the rib (i.e., ridge)
26 has a breakage origin part 28a formed by reducing the
thickness of the rib (i.e., ridge) 26 so as to form a thin
portion (i.e., a groove) in the side of the rib (i.e., ridge).
16
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

(English Translation, ¶ [0039], Answer, pages 5 and 6). The
Figure 5 embodiment substitutes the reduced thickness rib (i.e.,
ridge) for the notch as the breakage origin part. (English
Translation, ¶ [0039]). Also, as shown in Figure 5, the
breakage origin part (28a) extends all the way to the bottom of
the breakage part (i.e., tear line). It follows that Otsuka
teaches the claimed features of claims 2 and 10.
Dependent claims 19 and 20 include the following
limitations: “only one or two independent ridges are integrally
formed on the inner surface of the cover member astride said at
least one of the tear lines” (claim 19) and “only one or two
independent ridges are integrally formed on the inner surface
thereof astride said at least one of the tear lines” (claim 20).
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to supply
Yokota with only one or two ridges taught by Otsuka in order to
minimize the complexity of the cover, thereby reducing
manufacturing time and cost. (Answer, pages 4 and 6). The
Examiner further states that a modification involving a mere
change in number is generally considered to be within the level
of ordinary skill in the art. (Answer, page 6).
Appellants argue that Otsuka’s ribs (i.e., ridges) are
spaced uniformly along the entire length of the breakage part
17
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

(i.e., tear-line). Appellants indicate that Otsuka does not use
only one or two ribs (i.e., ridges) for reinforcing the recess
region. Appellants refer to Otsuka’s figures 1-7 to show that
the there are four ribs (i.e., ridges)(26) and eight side ribs
(i.e., ridges)(30). Moreover, Appellants state that each
breakage part (i.e., tear line) would be required to have at
least one rib (i.e., ridge) according to Otsuka’s disclosure.
From this alleged teaching, Appellants determine that the sum of
the ribs (i.e., ridges) would exceed the “only one or two
independent ridges” limitation. (Reply Brief, page 6).
Contrary to Appellants arguments regarding the features of
claims 19 and 20, Otsuka teaches that the ribs may number “one
or more.” (English Translation, ¶ [0014]). Otsuka’s teaching
that the ribs (i.e., ridges) number “one or more” appears to be
directed toward the total number of ribs (i.e., ridges) on the
airbag cover (i.e., both sets of ribs (i.e., ridges) 26 and 30
are included in the total). (English Translation, ¶ [0014]).
This interpretation of Otsuka is reasonable because paragraph
[0014] refers to a “breakage part” (i.e., tear line) which
Otsuka later explains in paragraph [0035] to be indicated by
reference numeral 16 in Figure 1. As further explained in
paragraph [0035], breakage part (i.e., tear line) 16 is composed
18
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

of both the horizontal breakage part (i.e., tear line) 16a and
the breakage part (i.e., tear line) 16b. Ribs (i.e., ridges) 26
are used to reinforce horizontal breakage part (i.e., tear line)
16a and ribs (i.e., ridges) 30 are used to reinforce breakage
part (i.e., tear line) 16b. (Otsuka, Figure 1). As such,
Otsuka’s use of the term “breakage part” to describe the portion
of the cover composed of both the horizontal breakage part 16a
and breakage part 16b and his addition of ribs (i.e., ridges)
thereto in order to solve the rigidity problem in the airbag
cover, demonstrates that Otsuka’s “one or more” rib (i.e.,
ridge) disclosure reasonably relates to all breakage part(s)
(i.e., tear lines(s)) and therefore includes all sets of ribs
(e.g., 26 and 30). From this Otsuka teaching, the minimum
number of ribs (i.e., ridges) “astride” the breakage parts
(i.e., tear lines) on the cover may be one.
As to Appellants’ argument that claims 19 and 20 should be
construed such that “only one or two independent ridges” be
present on the airbag cover, we cannot agree. (Brief, page 6).
Claims 19 and 20 require “only one or two independent ridges” be
integrally formed on the inner surface of the cover member
“astride said at least one the tear lines.” The claim language
may be construed, as Appellants’ contend, to mean that only one
19
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

or two ridges are “astride” the total number of tear lines
present on the airbag cover, such that only one or two ridges
are present on the entire cover. However, the claim language
may also be construed to mean that only one or two ridges are
“astride” each of the tear lines on the airbag cover, such that
many ridges may be present, as long as each tear line has, at
most, two ridges.
During examination claim language is given its broadest
reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, a specification is
examined for whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise it may provide to construing claim language. Id.
When interpreting a claim, the specification is usually the
single best guide to the meaning of disputed claim language.
Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d at 1315, 1321, 75 USPQ2d
at 1327, 1332.
Appellants’ specification does not provide any definitions
that would aid in determining the exact meaning of the claim
language. However, we do note that Appellants’ specification
does state that the number ridges 30 are “not limited to those
in the embodiments and may be changed as desired.”
20
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

(Specification, page 14). In light of Appellants’ disclosure,
the broader interpretation of claims 19 and 20 (i.e., at most
two ridges per tear line) appears reasonable and consistent with
Appellants’ specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054,
44 USPQ2d at 1027. This broader interpretation does not become
unreasonable simply because the Appellants can point to support
for their more narrow interpretation. Id., 127 F.3d at 1056,
44 USPQ2d 1029. The language of claims 19 and 20, in our
opinion, is broad enough to include each tear line having at
most two ridges. Otsuka clearly teaches embodiments wherein the
breakage parts (i.e., tear lines) have “one or more” (e.g., one
or two) ribs (i.e., ridges), which would satisfy this broader
interpretation. (English Translation, ¶¶ [0014], [0053],
[0055]).
Moreover, Otsuka teaches the number of ribs (i.e., ridges)
may be manipulated to achieve any desired rigidity and breakage
strength. (English Translation, ¶ [0055]). In view of Otsuka’s
teaching that the number of ribs (i.e., ridges) is an art
recognized result-effective variable for controlling rigidity,
it would have been obvious to optimize the number of ribs,
through routine experimentation, to achieve a desired rigidity
thereby resulting in one or two ribs (i.e., ridges) as required
21
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

by claims 19 and 20. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215
(C.C.P.A. 1980).
The § 103(a) rejection is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first Paragraph
written description rejection and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept. 13, 2004).
AFFIRMED

BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )

22
Appeal No. 2006-1546
Application No. 09/974,262

BRG:mpc:cam

Cc:

Carrier, Blackman and Associates
24101 Novi Road
Suite 100
Novi, MI 48375

23