Ex parte Ross

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 13, 1998

08212082 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 14, 1994. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 MARK A. ROSS
____________
Appeal No. 95-4350
Application No. 08/212,0821
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 19.
The disclosed invention relates to a sensing device for use
in a passenger restraint system in a vehicle that comprises a low
frequency sensing circuit for sensing low frequency signals
generated as a result of deceleration of the vehicle during a
crash event, a high frequency sensing circuit for sensing high
Appeal No. 95-4350
Application No. 08/212,082
2
frequency signals generated as a result of deformation of
structural members of the vehicle during the crash event, and an
analyzing means for combining and analyzing the signals from the
two sensing circuits so as to provide an indication of whether to
activate a passenger restraint device.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A sensing device for use in a passenger restraint system
that restrains a passenger within a vehicle during a crash event,
said sensing device comprising:
a low frequency sensing circuit providing a signal of the
crash event, said low frequency sensing circuit being responsive
to low frequency signals generated as a result of deceleration of
the vehicle during the crash event;
a high frequency sensing circuit providing a signal of the
crash event, said high frequency sensing circuit being responsive
to high frequency signals generated as a result of deformation of
structural members of the vehicle during the crash event;
analyzing means for combining and analyzing the signal from
the low frequency sensing circuit and the signal from the high
frequency sensing circuit so as to provide an indication of
whether to activate a passenger restraint device.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Feldmaier 4,842,301 June 27, 1989
Diller 4,994,972 Feb. 19, 1991
Blackburn et al. (Blackburn) 5,036,467 July 30, 1991
Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 12, 14 through 16, 18 and 19
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Diller in view of Feldmaier.
Appeal No. 95-4350
Application No. 08/212,082
3
Claims 5, 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Diller in view of Feldmaier and
Blackburn.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4), Diller
discloses (Figure 1) a single sensor 14 that senses deceleration
of a vehicle during a crash event, and a plurality of crash
evaluation circuits EV-1, EV-2 and EV-3 for analyzing the
deceleration signal, but “does not explicitly disclose a high
frequency sensing circuit for sensing [a] high frequency signal
due to the deformation of components associated with the vehicle
during the crash event.” The examiner concludes (Answer, page 4)
that:
Feldmaier suggests a crash sensing and occupant
restraint activating apparatus which has a welded unit
body structure including a side rail extending back
from the front of the vehicle on each side, an acoustic
sensor generating a signal in response to acoustic
vibrations due to metal deformation in a frontal crash
(see at least the Abstract). The suggestion of the
Feldmaier patent in at least the Abstract would have
motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the teaching of Feldmaier with the system of Diller by
Appeal No. 95-4350
Application No. 08/212,082
Feldmaier makes clear (column 3, lines 38 through 43 and2
column 4, lines 11 through 18) that low frequency signals should
be excluded because they interfere with the sensor readings of
high frequency sensors.
Blackburn discloses (Figure 1) an A/D converter 102 for3
converting a low frequency accelerometer signal into a digital
signal for processing by the microcomputer 104.
4
using the acoustic sensor as taught in Feldmaier for2
sensing high frequency signals due to the deformation
of components associated with the vehicle during the
crash event and providing a high frequency signal
indicative of the deformation in order to combine a low
frequency accelerometer and a high frequency sensor to
provide a sensing system capable of giving early
indication of crash severity with addition of reliable
indication of crash direction and initial velocity
change. Thus, because of the motivation set forth
above, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to combine the teachings of Feldmaier and Diller.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to combine
a low frequency accelerometer [Diller] and a high frequency3
sensor [Feldmaier] to provide a sensing system capable of giving
early indication of crash severity with addition of reliable
indication of crash direction and initial velocity change,” we
find that the examiner still has not come to grips with the
“analyzing means” (claims 1 through 13) or the “microprocessor”
(claims 14 through 19) for combining and analyzing the low
frequency and the high frequency signals. For this reason, we
Appeal No. 95-4350
Application No. 08/212,082
5
agree with appellant (Brief, page 17) that “[t]he Examiner’s
statement that more than one sensor type gives a more accurate
determination of whether the passenger restraint should be
activated is knowledge gained from Appellant’s specification, and
therefore is impermissible hindsight.” Thus, the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 19 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-4350
Application No. 08/212,082
6
Patent Counsel
TRW Inc.
Space & Electronics Group
One Space Park, E1/4021
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
KWH/jrg
JENINE GILLIS
Appeal No. 95-4350
Serial No. 08/212,082
Judge HAIRSTON
Judge THOMAS
Judge BARRETT
Received: 01 Jul 98
Typed: 01 Jul 98
DECISION: REVERSED
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation(s)
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Heard: Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed: Updated Monthly Disk: ____

Updated Monthly Report:____