Ex Parte Preisler

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2007

10252177 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2007)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 DARIUS J. PREISLER
____________

Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and JENNIFER
D. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

Darius J. Preisler appeals from the Final Rejection (mailed November 3,
2005) of claims 25-29, all of the claims pending in the application. This Board has
jurisdiction to hear the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
This is the second appeal to the Board involving the instant application. The
first appeal (Appeal No. 2005-0361) resulted in a decision (mailed December 23,
2004) reversing the Examiner’s prior art rejections on the basis that Appellant’s
claims were indefinite. Appellant has since resolved the indefiniteness issues, and
the Examiner has reinstated the prior art rejections. These rejections are now
before us for review.
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

2
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a method of making a unitary composite cover for a
motor vehicle inflatable air bag system. Representative claim 25 reads as follows:
25. A method of making a unitary composite air
bag cover for an inflatable air bag system, the method
comprising the steps of:
injecting a molten first plastic into a mold cavity of
a first mold having a shape defining a body of the air bag
cover, wherein the shape defining a body includes a
shape defining a front panel;
permitting the first plastic to cool to a temperature
beneath the softening point of the first plastic such that a
body having a front panel is formed;
removing the body from the first mold;
inserting the body into a mold cavity of a second
mold having a shape defining the entire air bag cover
including an outer layer having a contact surface;
injecting a molten second plastic into the mold
cavity of the second mold at a temperature and pressure
sufficient to melt the front panel of the body and to form
the outer layer;
permitting the second plastic to cool to a
temperature beneath the softening point of the first and
second plastics such that the unitary composite air bag
cover is formed, wherein a molecular concentration
gradient is formed at an interface between the first and
second plastics to bond the first and second plastics by
diffusion at the entire contact surface of the outer layer to
prevent separation of the outer layer from the front panel
during use of the air bag cover; and
removing the completed air bag cover from the
second mold.

Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

3
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the Examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Cherry 5,536,037 Jul. 16, 1996
Kikuchi 5,762,362 Jun. 09, 1998

THE REJECTIONS
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cherry in view of Kikuchi.
Claims 25-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kikuchi in view of Cherry.
Attention is directed to the main and Reply Briefs (filed December 2, 2005
and May 8, 2006) and Answer (mailed March 8, 2006) for the respective positions
of Appellant and the Examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.

DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 25 as being unpatentable over
Cherry in view of Kikuchi
Cherry discloses a motor vehicle occupant restraint apparatus 10 comprising,
inter alia, an inflatable air bag 18, a reaction canister 16 and an inflator 22. The
reaction canister houses the air bag and inflator and includes an opening 19
through which the air bag deploys when inflated.
The occupant restraint apparatus 10 also comprises a cover in the form of a
deployment door 12. In a closed position, the door 12 overlies the opening in the
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

4
canister and lies flush with the instrument panel 14 of the motor vehicle (see
Figures 1 and 2).
The door 12 is a unitary structure composed of a relatively soft one-piece
thermoplastic layer 60 and a relatively hard one-piece thermoplastic layer 70 (see
col. 2, ll. 3-9). These layers provide the door with a desirable combination of
external softness and internal rigidity (see col. 5, ll. 27-33). As described in more
detail by Cherry,
The deployment door 12 comprises a relatively
soft first material layer 60 and a relatively hard second
material layer 70. The hard second material layer 70
includes a body portion 78 (FIG. 3) which lies between
the air bag 18 and the soft first material layer 60. The
hard second material layer 70 includes an inner surface
74 which is presented toward and engaged by the air bag
18 when the air bag 18 is inflated. The hard second
material layer 70 further includes a major side surface 77
which lies opposite the inner surface 74. The major side
surface 77 is adhered to a major side surface 67 of the
soft first material layer 60. The soft first material layer
60 includes (i) a first outer surface portion 62 which lies
opposite the major side surface 67 and is exposed to the
vehicle passenger compartment and (ii) a second outer
surface portion 69 which is also exposed to the vehicle
passenger compartment.
The hard second material layer 70 has a [U-
shaped] projecting portion 76 which extends away from
the body portion 78 toward the vehicle passenger
compartment. The projecting portion 76 has an outer
surface 72 which is shown in the drawings as exposed to
the vehicle passenger compartment. The outer surface 72
of the projecting portion 76 lies flush with the first and
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

5
second outer surface portions 62, 69 of the soft first
material layer 60, as shown in FIG. 3. The outer surface
72 could, if desired, be painted or coated or otherwise
decorated, as desired, to be compatible with the vehicle
interior. An interconnecting surface 75 of the hard
second material layer 70 extends between the outer
surface 72 and the inner surface 74 [col. 3, ll. 1-28].

The interconnecting surface 75 on the hard material layer 70 adjoins an
interconnecting surface 65 on an interconnecting portion 66 of the soft material
layer 60 (see Figure 3). The surfaces 65 and 75 are in continuous adhered contact
along the U-shape of the projecting portion 76 (see col. 4, ll. 11-19). This joint
defines a U-shaped break line 30 bounding a flap portion 86 in the door 12.
With regard to the method of making the door, Cherry teaches that:
To manufacture the deployment door 12, the hard
second material layer 70 is molded first. The layer 70 is
molded by directing thermoplastic material which is used
to make the hard second material layer 70 into a first
injection mold. The resulting single piece of molded
thermoplastic material forms the hard second material
layer 70. The hard second material layer 70 is then
placed into a second injection mold with the inner surface
74 engaging one surface portion of the second injection
mold and the outer surface 72 engaging another surface
portion of the second injection mold. The thermoplastic
material which is used to make the soft first material
layer 60 is then directed at a relatively high temperature
into the second injection mold. This thermoplastic
material flows around the single piece of molded
thermoplastic material which forms the hard second
material layer 70.
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

6

As the thermoplastic material which is used to
make the soft first material layer 60 flows around the
hard second material layer 70, some of the thermoplastic
material at the projecting portion 76 of the hard second
material layer 70 melts and chemically bonds with the
thermoplastic material used to make the soft first material
layer 60. As the materials cool, a physical bond is
formed between the interconnecting portion 66 and the
projecting portion 76 to hold the hard second material
layer 70 and the soft first material layer 60 together. The
area contact between the interconnecting surfaces 65, 75
defines a break line 30 that extends in a U-shape
horizontally across the deployment door 12 and vertically
along opposite sides of the deployment door adjacent the
outer surface 72 of the hard second material layer 70.
The break line 30 extends in a U-shape along the juncture
of the interconnecting surface 65 of the soft first material
layer 60 and the interconnecting surface 75 of the hard
second material layer 70 [col. 4, l. 39, through col. 5, l.
5].

In the event of a collision, the air bag 18 inflates and presses against the
inner surface 74 of the hard material layer 70. This causes the interconnecting
surfaces 65 and 75 to separate from one another along the U-shaped break line 30
(see col. 5, ll. 6-14). Continued inflation of the air bag pivots the flap portion 86
bounded by the tear line to an open position (see Figure 4) permitting the bag to
deploy into the passenger compartment of the vehicle (see col. 5, ll. 15-26).
According to the Examiner (Answer 3-4), the air bag door/cover
manufacturing method disclosed by Cherry teaches or would have suggested all of
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

7
the limitations in appealed claim 25 except for the one requiring that the first
plastic be permitted to cool to a temperature beneath its softening point before
removal of the air bag cover body from the first mold. To overcome this perceived
deficiency in Cherry, the Examiner turns to Kikuchi.
Like Cherry, Kikuchi discloses a unitary composite air bag cover and
method of making same. In general, the cover 21 consists of a core layer 23 of
hard resin and a skin layer 22 of soft resin. The disposition of the soft skin layer
on opposite sides of the hard core layer in the area of a hinge line prevents
hazardous separation of the layers and shattering of the core layer upon
deployment of the air bag (see, for example, col. 1, ll. 41-63; col. 3, ll. 58-63; col.
4, ll. 11-13; col. 5, ll. 23-28; col. 7, ll. 60-67; and col. 8, ll. 32-42).
Of particular interest is the method by which Kikuchi makes the unitary
composite cover 21:
Still another feature of the present invention is that
a method of molding the air bag cover takes a first step in
which a pair of molds are clamped and thereafter molten
hard resin for a core layer is injected into a cavity of one
of the molds and is cooled and hardened to form the core
layer, and a second step in which after opening the
molds, a core die component (male die) of the one mold
is moved and brought into contact with a cavity die
component (female die) of the other mold and thereafter
molten soft resin for a skin layer is injected into a space
between the core layer formed on the core die component
and the cavity die component in order to form the skin
layer [col. 2, ll. 25-37; also see col. 5, l. 29, through col.
7, l. 13].

Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

8
This method produces a cover wherein the hard core layer and soft skin layer
are adhered or bonded together to define an integrally formed structure (see col. 2,
ll. 43-47; col. 4, ll. 63-65; col. 5, ll. 52-57; col. 6, ll. 40-41; and col. 8, ll. 33-35).
As indicated above, the Examiner is of the view that Cherry lacks response
to the limitation in claim 25 requiring that the first plastic be permitted to cool to a
temperature beneath its softening point before removal of the air bag cover body
from the first mold. Relying on Kikuchi to cure this alleged shortcoming, the
Examiner submits that it would have been obvious “to incorporate the step of
cooling [and hardening] of Kikuchi et al into the process of Cherry in order to
ensure that the body of Cherry is not damaged during the step of removing”
(Answer 4).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is 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).
Aside from a pro forma argument that the applied combination of Cherry
and Kikuchi stems from impermissible hindsight (Br. 7-8), Appellant does not
specifically dispute the particular modification of Cherry in view of Kikuchi
advanced by the Examiner. The requisite suggestion or motivation for this
modification springs from Kikuchi’s teaching that the resin of the hard core layer
23 is “cooled and hardened” (col. 2, l. 30) before transfer from a first mold set to a
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

9
second mold set. Cherry discloses a comparable method of making an air bag
cover, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that the
cooling and hardening step taught by Kikuchi would greatly facilitate the task of
successfully transferring Cherry’s hard layer 70 from the first mold to the second
mold. Indeed, Cherry’s description of the manner in which the hard layer 70 is
formed in the first mold and then placed in the second mold (see col. 4, ll. 39-48)
arguably by itself teaches or would have suggested the cooling limitation in
question.
The crux of Appellant’s position that the subject rejection is unsound instead
focuses on a different limitation in claim 25. More particularly, Appellant
contends (Br. 4-7; Reply 2-4) that the combined teachings of Cherry and Kikuchi
would not have suggested a method meeting the limitation requiring
a molecular concentration gradient . . . formed at an
interface between the first and second plastics to bond the
first and second plastics by diffusion at the entire contact
surface of the outer layer to prevent separation of the
outer layer from the front panel during use of the air bag
cover.

The Examiner essentially relies on Cherry as being suggestive of this
feature. Although Cherry does not expressly describe a molecular concentration
gradient of the sort claimed, the failure to do so is not dispositive. In this regard, it
is well settled that in analyzing the disclosure of a reference it is proper to take into
account not only the specific teachings contained in the reference but also the
inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

10
therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Cherry teaches that when the thermoplastic material used to make the soft
layer 60 is injected into the second mold and flows around the previously formed
hard layer 70, some of the thermoplastic material at the projecting portion 76 of the
hard layer 70 melts and chemically bonds with the soft thermoplastic material (see
col. 4, ll. 55-60). Cherry also teaches that as the melted thermoplastic materials
cool, a physical bond is formed between the interconnecting portion 66 of the soft
layer and the projecting portion 76 of the hard layer to hold these layers together
(col. 4, ll. 60-64).
As correctly pointed out by Appellant, these disclosures by Cherry refer only
to the interface between the hard layer projecting portion 76 and the soft layer
interconnecting portion 66 (Br. 5). Cherry gives no indication, however, that the
melting and bonding described therein are limited to this portion of the composite
door/cover. Appellant has not cogently explained or demonstrated, and it is not
apparent, why the melting and bonding would be so limited. The injection
temperature and pressure of the soft plastic material necessary to produce the
disclosed melting and bonding seemingly would also exist along the full extent of
contact between the hard layer 70 and the soft layer 60. The full extent of contact
would, of course, encompass the major side surface 77 on the body portion 78 of
the hard layer 70 and the major side surface 67 on the soft layer 60. The body
portion 78 and major side surface 67 correspond respectively to the “front panel”
and “contact surface” recited in claim 25. The apparent melting and bonding
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

11
therebetween would seem to be the only reasonable explanation inferable from
Cherry for the disclosed adherence between the major side surfaces 67 and 77 (col.
3, ll. 7-11).
Furthermore, Cherry’s disclosure of the process of creating the
chemical/physical bond between the hard and soft layers is essentially similar to
the description of the bond forming process set forth in Appellant’s specification
(see the paragraph bridging pp. 5 and 6). Both methods involve the steps of
injecting a melted soft plastic material into a mold cavity at a temperature and
pressure sufficient to melt a surface layer of a formed hard plastic part and then
permitting the melted plastics to cool to beneath their softening points. The
injection temperature and pressure present during the molding of Cherry’s soft
layer would certainly produce at least some intermixing of the injected soft
material and the melted hard material. Appellant has failed to explain or
demonstrate, and it is not evident, why the resulting chemical/physical bond would
not embody a diffusion bond exhibiting a molecular concentration gradient as
broadly recited in claim 25. It also goes without saying that Cherry would have
suggested using compatible hard and soft thermoplastic materials (see col. 4, ll. 20-
38) suitable for effecting the melting and bonding described therein.
Appellant also has failed to persuasively support the argument (see, for
example, Br. 6) that the applied prior art would not have suggested a bond that
prevents separation of Cherry’s outer layer (soft layer 60) from the front panel
(body portion 78) of the body (hard layer 70) upon deployment of the air bag.
Figure 4 of the Cherry reference illustrates the door/cover 12 after deployment of
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

12
the air bag and shows no such separation. Moreover, Kikuchi establishes that
separation between the hard and soft layers of similarly constructed air bag covers
was a problem known in the art. This knowledge would have provided the artisan
with ample motivation or suggestion to choose the parameters of Cherry’s
door/cover and injection molding process so as to avoid the separation problem.
Appellant’s related observation that the bond between Cherry’s hard and soft
layers separates along the tear line 30 (see, for example, Br. 6) is of no moment.
As evidenced by Cherry’s Figure 3, the joint defined by the tear line 30 would be
subject to separation forces far different in kind and degree than those that might
tend to separate the outer layer (soft layer 60) from the front panel (body portion
78) of the body (hard layer 70).
Thus, the combined teachings of Cherry and Kikuchi, and the inferences that
can be fairly drawn therefrom, would have suggested a method of making a unitary
composite air bag cover responsive to the argued molecular concentration gradient
and diffusion bond limitation in claim 25.
Based on the totality of evidence and argument before us, the combination of
Cherry in view of Kikuchi proffered by the Examiner justifies a conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in claim 25 and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 25 as being unpatentable over Cherry in view of Kikuchi.

Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

13
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 25-29 as being unpatentable over
Kikuchi in view of Cherry
For purposes of arguing this rejection on appeal, Appellant relies solely on
the arguments in the briefs addressing the rejection of claim 25 as being
unpatentable over Cherry in view of Kikuchi (Br. 8). As explained above, such
arguments are not persuasive.
Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 25, and claims 26-29 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over
Kikuchi in view of Cherry.
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

14
SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 25-29 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). See 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-2962
Application No. 10/252,177

15
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075