Ex parte Masunari et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2001

09064083 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2001)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SHOJI MASUNARI and EIJI SHIMOCHI
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0915
Application No. 09/064,083
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before ABRAMS, McQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 to 9, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 2
Application No. 09/064,083
In determining the teachings of Kanazawa, we will rely1
on the translation provided by the USPTO. A copy of the
translation is attached for the appellants' convenience.
The appellants' invention relates to "a vehicle power
supply system, and is applicable to the prevention of a
vehicle fire which is caused by the power supply damage which
may occur at the time of vehicle collision" (specification, p.
1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the
appendix to the appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Balban 3,980,318 Sep. 14, 1976
Kanazawa et al. JP 6-321027 Nov. 22, 19941
(Kanazawa)
Claims 1 to 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kanazawa in view of Balban.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 3
Application No. 09/064,083
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner2
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
7, mailed February 26, 1999) and the answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed September 7, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper
No. 12, filed August 24, 1999) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness2
with respect to the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 4
Application No. 09/064,083
The two independent claims on appeal read as follows:
1. A vehicle power supply system comprising:
a collision detecting member for detecting a
collision of the vehicle;
a power line supplying electric power from a power
source portion to a plurality of loads;
a fuse connected to the power line so that the fuse
is fused when over-current flows therein; and
an over-current generating member for causing the
over-current to flow in the fuse to fuse the fuse when
the collision detecting member detects the collision of
the vehicle.
8. A method to interrupt supplying electric power for a
vehicle comprising the steps of
detecting a collision of the vehicle by a collision
detecting member;
generating a collision detecting signal by the
collision detecting member when the collision is
detected; shorting a switch circuit connected to a
fuse by the collision detecting signal;
causing the over-current to flow in the fuse when
the switch circuit is shorted;
fusing the fuse by the over-current.
Kanazawa discloses a power breaker device that maintains
the vehicle safety by shutting the electric current sent from
a battery when a problem occurs to a power system. The Figure
1 embodiment of Kanazawa's invention includes a battery 1; a
fuse-link 2; power cable 3 leading to load devices; current
detector part 4; silicon control rectifier 5; vehicle
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 5
Application No. 09/064,083
monitoring control system 6; section status monitoring part 7;
total current computation part 8; and control part 9. The
Figure 1 embodiment of Kanazawa's invention operates as
follows: the control part 9 compares the electric current
value detected by the current detector part 4 with the
electric current value computed by the total current
computation part 8 and outputs a control voltage to the
silicon control rectifier 5 when a power problem is detected.
When a control voltage is impressed on the silicon control
rectifier 5, the silicon control rectifier 5 becomes
conductive, letting a high current be transmitted to the fuse-
link 2 causing the fuse-link 2 to melt and thus stopping the
supplying of power to each load device to thereby assure
vehicle safety.
Balban's invention relates to a vehicle safety system and
more particularly relates to a fused multiple stage inflation
system for passive passenger restraints. The safety system of
Balban includes deceleration sensors 59 and 62 which are
initially open and remain so during normal operation of the
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 6
Application No. 09/064,083
vehicle. Upon collision causing a preselected first level
deceleration magnitude, the low level deceleration
sensor 62 closes causing current to flow from power supply
unit 11 through line 28, sensor 62, fuse 61 and line 40 to
electro-explosive devices 33A and 33B. The electro-explosive
devices 33A and 33B then fire and rapidly apply pressurized
gas through lines 51A and 51B to confinement C initiating
inflation thereof to restrain an adjacent occupant of the
vehicle against injurious contact with surrounding portions of
the vehicle toward which he is being impelled during the
vehicle deceleration. However, when an electro-explosive
device explodes, wire or powder fragments released by the
explosion may cause a short, or substantial short, across the
terminals of the electro-explosive device and hence across the
power supply unit 11. Thereupon, the current through the
series connected fuse 61 rapidly increases,
causing it to open circuit and thereby removing the short from
across the power source. Opening of the fuse occurs very
quickly, normally in a few milliseconds, following the firing
and shorting of the series connected electro-explosive device.
This effect is of particular importance where the vehicle
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 7
Application No. 09/064,083
battery 13 is disabled in the collision. In such event,
opening of the fuse 61 prevents the shorted, fired
electro-explosive device from draining a redundant power
supply 20 sufficiently to prevent
same from thereafter firing additional electro-explosive
devices. Should the deceleration level continue to increase
at least to the threshold of the deceleration sensing device
59, the latter closes, applying current from the power output
line 28 through line 41 to a further electro-explosive device
34 causing same to detonate and flow gas through line 52 to
confinement C for further protecting the corresponding vehicle
occupant against the increased deceleration.
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Kanazawa and claim 1,
it is our opinion that the differences are: (1) a collision
detecting member for detecting a collision of the vehicle; and
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 8
Application No. 09/064,083
(2) the over-current generating member for causing the over-
current to flow in the fuse to fuse the fuse occurs when the
collision detecting member detects the collision of the
vehicle. Based on our analysis and review of Kanazawa and
claim 8, it is our opinion that the differences are: (1)
detecting a collision of the vehicle by a collision detecting
member; (2) generating a collision detecting signal by the
collision detecting member when the collision is detected; and
(3) shorting a switch circuit connected to a fuse by the
collision detecting signal.
With regard to these differences, the examiner determined
(final rejection, pp. 2-3) that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to provide Kanazawa "with teachings of Balban, because
the use of acceleration sensor activates the power supply
short circuiting safety means due to an accident, wherein the
safety means of [Kanazawa] can be use[d] to prevent short
circuit fires (Balban; column 7, lines 8-15)."
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 9
Application No. 09/064,083
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-15) that the applied
prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. We
agree.
Obviousness is tested by "what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). But it "cannot be established by combining
the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed
invention, absent some teaching or suggestion supporting the
combination." ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732
F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). And
"teachings of references can be combined only if there is some
suggestion or incentive to do so." Id. Here, it is our
determination that the prior art contains none. In fact, the
advantages of utilizing a collision detecting member to cause
a fuse to blow to interrupt a vehicle power supply are not
appreciated by the prior art applied by the examiner.
Instead, it appears to us that the examiner relied on
hindsight in reaching his obviousness determination. However,
our reviewing court has said, "To imbue one of ordinary skill
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 10
Application No. 09/064,083
in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no
prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest
that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a
hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught
is used against its teacher." W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). It is essential
that "the decisionmaker forget what he or she has been taught
. . . about the claimed invention and cast the mind back to
the time the invention was made . . . to occupy the mind of
one skilled in the art who is presented only with the
references, and who is normally guided by the then-accepted
wisdom in the art." Id. Since the claimed subject matter as
a whole is not taught or suggested by the applied prior art,
we will not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, and
of dependent claims 2 to 7 and 9.
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 11
Application No. 09/064,083
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. McQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 12
Application No. 09/064,083
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1800 M STREET NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5869
Appeal No. 2000-0915 Page 13
Application No. 09/064,083
JVN/jg