10172166 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2008)

Ex Parte Mendenhall et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 29, 2008

10172166 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte IVAN V. MENDENHALL and ROBERT G. SMITH ____________ Appeal 2007-2195 Application 10/172,166 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Decided: February 29, 2008 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants request rehearing of our decision on August 21, 2007, wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s §103 rejections of claims 1-15, 17-20, and 31-33 over Taylor, and claims 1-15, 17-20, and 34-36 over Mendenhall. Appeal 2007-2195 Application 10/172,166 Upon careful review of Appellants’ Request, we find that our decision is free of error in concluding that the Examiner properly rejected the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants state that since claims 34-36 require that the compositions be free of ammonium nitrate, the claims are patentable over the Taylor disclosure. However, as set forth in our Decision and the Examiner’s Answer, claims 34-36 were not rejected over Taylor. Appellants also maintain that claim 9 is directed to a seat belt pretensioner containing the claimed gas generant composition and that “it was argued that the cited art nowhere shows or suggests a seat belt pretensioner let alone a seat belt pretensioner containing a gas generant composition, as claimed” (Request 3, ¶ [2]). However, Taylor discloses that “this invention relates generally to gas generant compositions, such as those used to inflate automotive inflatable restraint airbag cushions” (col. 1, ll. 11- 13), and Mendenhall discloses that the invention is directed to “vehicle occupant restraint air bag cushions” (col. 1, l. 7). Accordingly, we are confident that one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle occupant restraint systems would have understood that the teachings of Taylor and Mendenhall are applicable to a seat belt pretensioner which contains a gas generant composition. Appellants also contend that we did not address or consider the argument that: No prior art disclosure or suggestion of the production of a gas effluent having either a lesser relative amount of NOx or a lesser relative amount of carbon monoxide as compared to a gas effluent upon combustion of a similar composition without the potassium perchlorate gas generant additive, as required by or 2 Appeal 2007-2195 Application 10/172,166 in the claimed invention, has been identified in the prior art in general or in Mendenhall in particular. (Request, sentence bridging 4-5). However, this is not the case. Our decision explicitly states that “as for Appellants’ argument that Mendenhall provides no disclosure of a gas effluent having a lesser relative amount of NOx or carbon monoxide, it logically follows that the same compositions will produce substantially the same effluent” (Decision 6, ¶ [1]). As explained by the Examiner in the Answer and set forth in our Decision, Mendenhall discloses a gas generant composition comprising the presently claimed non-azide nitrogen-containing gas generating fuel, a metal ammine nitrate oxidizer, silicon dioxide up to 25%, ammonium nitrate and an alkali metal perchlorate. Also, we state in the Decision that Taylor evidences that it was known in the art to use such gas generating compositions comprising potassium perchlorate as an additive along with the associated problem regarding effluent toxicity and undesirable by-products. We concluded that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to balance the advantages of using potassium perchlorate against the disadvantages discussed by Taylor [and that] Appellants make no argument that they have some how eliminated the problems with using potassium perchlorate” (Decision 5, ¶ [2]). While Appellants argue that they produce a gas effluent having a lesser relative amount of either or both carbon monoxide and NOx materials, Appellants have not, as noted in our Decision, provided any objective evidence which establishes unexpected results. 3 Appeal 2007-2195 Application 10/172,166 CONCLUSION In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we have granted Appellants’ request to the extent we have reconsidered our decision, but we deny Appellants’ request to making any change therein. DENIED tc/cam AUTOLIV ASP, INC. ATTN: SALLY J. BROWN ESQ. 3350 AIRPORT ROAD OGDEN, UT 84405 4