Ex Parte Keshavaraj

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 15, 2003

09478871 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 15, 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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RAMESH KESHAVARAJ
____________
Appeal No. 2003-0220
Application No. 09/478,871
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, FRANKFORT, and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-25,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2003-0220
Application No. 09/478,871
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an inflatable cushion for a vehicle occupant
restraint system. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which has been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Wessels 4,603,571 Aug. 5, 1986
Ford et al. (Ford) 5,975,571 Nov. 2, 1999
Iino et al. (Iino) 6,142,520 Nov. 7, 2000
(filed Aug. 11, 1997)

Claims 1-3, 7-11 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over lino in view of Wessels.
Claims 4-6, 12-16 and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over lino in view of Wessels and Ford.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 13) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 12) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Appeal No. 2003-0220
Application No. 09/478,871
Page 3
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant explains that prior art cushions from which vehicle airbags are
constructed comprise pairs of congruent circular pieces of fabric joined to one another
to form the two sides of a cushion, and that the common practice of cutting a plurality of
circles from a rectangular piece of fabric results in a great deal of waste, even when the
circles are spaced in touching relationship with one another. The improvement
provided by the appellant’s invention is to make the panels in the geometric shape of a
dodecagon, which is a polygon having twelve sides and twelve vertices. According to
the appellant, this provides better fabric utilization by reducing the waste between
adjacent panels, results in waste sections which have straight edges and therefore are
easier to use to make other fabric portions of the airbag system, and the linear edge
segments facilitate seaming operations by improving the ease with which cut panels
can be aligned as well as making folding operations simpler. In addition, if pairs of
panels are provided with shared uncut boundaries on one of the sides, the folding is
even more efficient and one less side need be sewn. Also, the dodecagon shape
requires minimal orientation to align the finished product with respect to any fold line to
facilitate storage of the uninflated cushion in an operative position in the vehicle.
The invention is manifested in claim 1 in the following manner:
Appeal No. 2003-0220
Application No. 09/478,871
Page 4
1The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or
to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,
973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
1. An inflatable fabric cushion for use in a vehicle occupant
restraint system, said cushion having a face panel and a
rear panel, wherein said face panel is in the shape of a first
twelve-sided polygon and said rear panel is in the shape of a
second, congruent twelve-sided polygon, said face panel
and said rear panel being joined along the respective
coincident cut edges.
The examiner has rejected this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious1 in
view of the combined teachings of lino and Wessels. It is the examiner’s position that
all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 is disclosed by lino except for making the face
and rear panels in the shape of a twelve-sided polygon, but that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lino airbag in such a manner as
to meet the terms of the claim in view of the teachings of Wessels. The appellant
argues in rebuttal that Wessels is not analogous art, and that even if it were so
considered, there would have been no suggestion to modify lino in the manner
proposed by the examiner.
Appeal No. 2003-0220
Application No. 09/478,871
Page 5
Even considering, arguendo, Wessels to be analogous art, we find ourselves in
agreement with the appellant that the rejections are defective and cannot be sustained.
Our reasoning follows, with claim 1 being representative.
lino is exactly the type of prior art airbag over which the appellant believes his
invention to be an improvement, in that it is comprised of a pair of superimposed
circular panels fastened together along their outer edges. Therefore, lino lacks the
twelve-sided polygonal shape specified in the appellant’s claim 1 for the face and rear
panels.
Wessels is directed to an apparatus for drawing circular cups from non-circular
blanks obtained from sheets of metal. Wessels teaches that “[t]he blanks may be
hexagonal, or square or substantially hexagonal or substantially square so as to provide
better utilization of the overall area of the metal sheet” from which they are stamped to
reduce the amount of waste as compared to the prior art practice of using circular
blanks (column 1, lines 37-41). Another reason Wessels uses the disclosed shapes is
to improve upon the manner in which the blank is stretched during the drawing
operation (column 1, lines 42-55). The two shapes disclosed in the drawings
are a square (Figure 4) and a six-sided polygon (Figure 15). A twelve-sided polygon is
not shown or discussed.
Appeal No. 2003-0220
Application No. 09/478,871
Page 6
The examiner has explained the rejection in the following manner on page 4 of
the Answer:
From this [six-sided] teaching [of Wessels], forming the face
and rear panels of lino et al. with a polygonal shape, rather
than a circular shape, would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in
order to minimize waste during manufacturing.
Moreover, forming the polygonal shape with twelve sides,
such that each side has a specific length, represents a
change in shape that would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. This change in shape would apply a
well known concept in a way that optimizes the use of space
on the sheet of material used in manufacturing, while
maintaining a generally circular shape in the panel
(emphasis added).
The examiner further states in response to the appellant’s argument (Answer, page 5):
Since a circle is conceptually understood to be a polygon
with an infinite number of sides, this problem can be more
particularly stated as whether or not providing the panels
with a specific number of sides is patentably distinguishing
over the prior art (emphasis added).
The fact of the matter is that the appellant’s claim 1 specifies that the face and
rear panels each have the shape of a twelve-sided polygon, and the specification
explains that this provides several advantages other than merely providing less waste
than utilizing panels that are circular. While Wessels recognizes that there are more
efficient shapes than circles for reasons of saving waste and improving the forming
operation, Wessels does not disclose or teach that a twelve-sided polygon is useful for
Appeal No. 2003-0220
Application No. 09/478,871
Page 7
2In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
purposes of his invention, or imply that increasing the number of sides beyond six
would be equally or more advantageous. The examiner has provided no evidence in
support of his statements that forming the shape with twelve sides to optimize the use
of material is “a well known concept” and that it is “conceptually understood” that a
circle is a polygon with an infinite number of sides, although we fail to appreciate the
relevance of the latter statement.
In view of the lack of supporting evidence provided by the examiner, and
considering the appellant’s assertion that utilizing twelve sides provides specific
improvements to the manufacture of cushions for airbags, we cannot agree with the
examiner that the combined teachings of lino and Wessels establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1. From our
perspective, suggestion for combining the references in such a manner as to meet the
terms of claim 1 is found only in the hindsight afforded one who first viewed the
appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection.2
We therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or of claims 2 and 3, which
depend from claim 1 and stand similarly rejected.
We reach the same conclusion on the basis of the same reasoning with regard
to independent claims 7 and 17 and dependent claims 8-11 and 18-20, which contain
the
Appeal No. 2003-0220
Application No. 09/478,871
Page 8
limitation of a twelve-sided polygon and also stand rejected on the basis of lino and
Wessels.
Claims 4-6, 12-16 and 21-25 have been rejected as being unpatentable over lino
in view of Wessels and Ford. These claims require the twelve-sided polygons plus the
limitation that the polygons be contiguous along a common uncut side, a teaching for
which Ford is applied. However, Ford fails to overcome the shortcoming pointed out
above concerning the combined teachings of lino and Wessels, and therefore this
rejection also cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-0220
Application No. 09/478,871
Page 9
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
NEA/lbg
Appeal No. 2003-0220
Application No. 09/478,871 Page 10
CHARLOTTE C. WILSON
MILLIKEN & COMPANY
LEGAL DEPARTMENT, M-495
P.O. BOX 1926
SPARTANBURG, SC 29303