Ex Parte Ruedisueli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2014

12492415 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KEVIN L. RUEDISUELI,
DARIN K. HILL, and JENNIFER J. KOWALAK
____________________

Appeal 2012-005665
Application 12/492,415
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JAMES P. CALVE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS,
and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 17–26. App. Br. 5. Claims 1–16 are allowed. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-005665
Application 12/492,415

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 17, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
17. A deployment ramp for an inflatable curtain, the
deployment ramp comprising:
a first portion constructed with a first material;
a second portion constructed with a second material
different than the first material; and
a joint interconnecting the first and second portions, the
joint comprising co-extruded portions of the first and second
portions.

REJECTIONS
Claims 17, 18, and 21–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Damman (US 5,647,608; iss. July 15, 1997).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Damman.
ANALYSIS
Claims 17, 18, and 21–26 as anticipated by Damman
The Examiner finds that Damman discloses a deployment ramp that
includes a first portion (housing 20) constructed of a first material, a second
portion (cover 63) constructed of a second, different material, and a joint (a
cover channel 33 on housing 20 and an enlarged end portion 61 on the cover
63) that interconnects the first and second portions 20, 63 and comprises co-
extruded portions of first and second portions. Ans. 5, 7 (citing Damman,
Figs. 2, 3). The Examiner interprets the term “co-extruded portions” in
claim 17 as a product-by-process limitation, finds that Damman discloses a
joint formed by sliding an enlarged portion 61 of cover 63 into a channel 33,
and determines that the sliding nature of this joint is the only difference
between the claimed invention and Damman. Ans. 7 (citing MPEP 2113).
Appeal 2012-005665
Application 12/492,415

3
Appellants argue that the claimed co-extruded joint recited in claim 17
has a different structure than the joint in Damman because it is clear from
Appellants’ Specification that co-extrusion does not result in a joint where a
sliding engagement exists. Reply Br. 6. Appellants argue that the claimed
co-extruded joint creates a bond that prevents separation (including sliding
engagement between) of the first and second portions. Id.
We interpret the limitation “the joint comprising co-extruded portions
of the first and second portions” as a product-by-process limitation to require
a joint that is formed by co-extruding parts of the first and second portions.
Claim 17 recites no other structure of the joint. The Examiner acknowledges
that Damman discloses a joint in which enlarged portions 61, 62 of a cover
60 slide into channels 33, 34 of a housing 20, while the claimed co-extruded
joint is formed by simultaneously extruding and bonding different materials
of the first and second portions in a single operation. Ans. 5, 7. However,
the Examiner does not explain how the structure of Damman’s joint is the
same as, or an obvious variant of, the claimed co-extruded joint. Appellants’
Specification discloses at page 9, line 20 to page 10, line 4, with emphasis
added:
According to the present invention, the support portion
205 of the mounting member 202 is formed from a material that
is different from the material from which the deployment
member 220 and the fastening portion 224 are formed. The
support portion 205, fastening portion 224, and deployment
member 220 are co-extruded such that the support portion,
fastening portion, and deployment member are simultaneously
formed from their respective materials and bonded together
along their respective connections 210 and 211. The
deployment ramp 200 is thus formed in a single operation.

Appeal 2012-005665
Application 12/492,415

4
We appreciate that the joint of Damman does not come apart during
deployment of the airbag; however, the cover 60 and housing 20 are not
formed simultaneously from their respective materials and bonded together
permanently along their respective connections 61/33, 62/34. The joint of
Damman is assembled from separate pieces and is not joined permanently as
in bonding by co-extrusion. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the
claimed co-extruded joint has a different structure than Damman’s joint.1
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 17, 18, and 21–26.
Claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable over Damman
Claims 19 and 20 depend indirectly from claim 17 and recite that the
elastomeric material of the first portion is fiber reinforced polypropylene and
that the elastomeric material of the second portion is a thermoplastic olefinic
elastomer. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to make the
first and second portions of Damman of these materials as a matter of design
choice. Ans. 6. These findings do not remedy the deficiencies of Damman
as to base claim 17. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 20.

1 We note that even if we interpreted “the joint comprising co-extruded
portions of the first and second portions” as a purely structural limitation,
Damman again does not disclose this structure. See In re Hazani v. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that “the
‘chemically engraved’ claims are not product-by-process claims but rather
are best characterized as pure product claims” because “the ‘chemically
engraved’ limitation, read in context, describes the product more by its
structure than by the process used to obtain it”) (citations omitted); In re
Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 278–79 (CCPA 1960) (claimed “interbonded”
particles was a structural limitation).
Appeal 2012-005665
Application 12/492,415

5
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 17–26.

REVERSED
llw