Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 6, 2011

11305130 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 6, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte DOH YOON KIM
_____________

Appeal 2009-008311
Application 11/305,130
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008311
Application 11/305,130

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 31 through 45.
We reverse.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of classifying the weight of an
occupant of a vehicle for use with airbag systems. See Specification 1, 3.
Claim 31 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
31. A method for classifying an occupant weight in a vehicle,
comprising:
sensing an occupant weight in a vehicle and classifying the
occupant weight into a weight class in accordance with the sensed
occupant weight; and
changing the weight class after a pre-set first classification time
lapses when an occupant enters or exits the vehicle and a change of
the occupant weight is sensed, and changing the weight class after a
pre-set second classification time lapses when the occupant remains in
the vehicle and a change of the occupant weight is sensed.

REFERENCE
Lichtinger US 2004/0016577 A1 Jan. 29, 2004

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 31 through 45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Lichtinger. Answer 3-5.

ISSUE
Appellant’s contentions, on pages 12 through 15 of the Brief, present
us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that Lichtinger teaches
Appeal 2009-008311
Application 11/305,130

3

changing a weight class after a pre-set first classification time lapses when
an occupant enters or exits the vehicle as recited in claim 31?2

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 31. Independent claim 31 recites that the weight class is
changed after a first pre-set time lapses when an occupant enters or exits a
vehicle and the weight class is changed after a second pre-set time lapses
when the occupant remains in the vehicle. The Examiner, in rejecting claim
31, finds that Lichtinger teaches that the weight class is updated every
second, but if the weight class is locked, the weight class must be the same
for five to seven seconds before it will be updated. Answer 5. We concur
with this finding by the Examiner. Based upon this finding, the Examiner
concludes that the one second and five to seven second time periods meet
the two pre-determined time lapses as claimed. We disagree with the
Examiner’s conclusion. The Examiner has not shown that one of these time
periods is associated with a passenger entering or exiting the vehicle and the
other is associated with the occupant remaining with the vehicle as claimed.
Rather, as stated by the Examiner, on page 5 of the Answer, the one second
time period is to “filter out momentary events that may transfer or remove
weight from the seat,” which is not limited to passengers entering and
exiting the vehicle but could also relate to movement of weight within the
vehicle. Further, while the Examiner has equated the five to seven second

2 We note that Appellant’s arguments present additional issues; however, we
do not reach these issues as this issue is dispositive of the appeal for these
claims.
Appeal 2009-008311
Application 11/305,130

4

time period with the occupant remaining with the vehicle, the Examiner has
not shown that this period, which Lichtinger identifies as the “locking delay”
(¶ 0079), is associated only with the passenger moving within the vehicle.
For example, upon the passenger exiting the car, the second time period (the
time period associated with the locking delay) would still stay in effect until
the class is unlocked, which only occurs after a predetermined number of
inconsistent class samples is observed (¶ [0019]). Accordingly, we do not
find that the Examiner has shown that Lichtinger teaches all of the
limitations of independent claim 31. We therefore will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 31, nor claims 32 through 45
which depend upon claim 31, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

CONCLUSION
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claim 31. Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
31 through 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 31 through 45 is
reversed.

REVERSED

babc

GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191