12333765 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)

Ex Parte Saraf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 2014

12333765 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BIJOY K. SARAF, MICHAEL N. TRUTZEL, and KALU UDUMA ____________ Appeal 2012-008026 Application 12/333,7651 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 5–9, 11, 13, and 14.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, Chrysler Group LLC is the real party in interest (App. Br. 3). 2 Our decision refers to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Dec. 19, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 26, 2012), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 29, 2012). Appeal 2012-008026 Application 12/333,765 2 Introduction Appellants’ disclosure relates to a system of inflatable airbags to cushion the occupant of an automobile in the event of a side impact (Spec. ¶ 3). Claim 5, reproduced below, is the independent claim on appeal. 5. An energy management system for a vehicular side impact event comprising: a first inflatable plastic chamber having a first outer surface comprising a first interior trim panel for a side door of a vehicle positioned so as to be adjacent to a shoulder area of an occupant seated adjacent the side door; and a second inflatable plastic chamber having a second outer surface comprising a second interior trim panel for the side door positioned so as to be adjacent a pelvic area of the occupant, the second inflatable plastic chamber being fluidly isolated from the first inflatable plastic chamber. App. Br. 15, Claims App’x. Prior Art Relied Upon Honda US 7,055,853 B2 June 6, 2006 Rust US 7,350,852 B2 Apr. 1, 2008 Rejection On Appeal Claims 5–9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Honda and Rust.3 3 Appellants appeal from the last decision of the Examiner, including the rejections of claims 5–9, 11, 13, and 14. However, Appellants only present arguments relating to claims 5–10. Claim 10 has been cancelled without prejudice by Appellants’ paper of January 26, 2011 (See also App. Br. 16, Claims App’x.). Appellants do not present any arguments contesting the rejection of claims 11, 13, and 14. As such, we summarily sustain the rejections of claims 11, 13, and 14. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (8th ed., Sept. 2007) (“If a ground of rejection Appeal 2012-008026 Application 12/333,765 3 ANALYSIS Independent claim 5 The system of claim 5 comprises two airbags: a shoulder airbag (“a first inflatable plastic chamber”) and a waist airbag (a “second inflatable plastic chamber”). The Examiner finds that Honda substantially describes the subject matter of the claimed invention but does not describe a “plastic chamber,” as recited by claim 5 (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Rust describes a first inflatable plastic chamber 52 and a second inflatable plastic chamber 54 which are part of the side door. (Id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify Honda in view of Rust to have inflatable plastic chambers in the side door, e.g., for cost of manufacture. (Id.). Appellants argue that Honda teaches away from the proposed modification because the use of a plastic material described in Rust would render the device of Honda inoperable for its intended purpose. Appellants argue that using a plastic material would restrict the inflation of the airbags upon deployment (App. Br. 10–13). With respect to the shoulder airbag (the “first” chamber), Appellants assert that the modified device would be restricted, by the passage of the plastic material through an opening, from inflating in the direction of the occupant’s head. (Id. at 12). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification results in a stored airbag that extends further into the door panel and that this would prevent the operation of the window. (Id. at 12–13). Additionally, Appellants argue that, even if the airbag could inflate in the direction of the occupant’s head, stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”). Appeal 2012-008026 Application 12/333,765 4 the airbag would be restricted from widening beyond the width of trim panel 14, which would render it too small to perform its function of absorbing impact energy during a collision. (Reply Br. 5). Similarly, with respect to the waist airbag (the “second” chamber), Appellants argue that the plastic material would restrict the inflation of the airbag through opening 14a, thus preventing the airbag from widening beyond its pre-deployed width. (Id. at 11). Appellants again argue that the restricted width would restrict the effectiveness of the device for absorbing energy. (Id.). However, the Examiner finds that Rust (Figs. 1–3 and col. 4, ll. 14– 21) not only teaches a plastic material for the inflatable chambers but also teaches that the inflatable chambers have walls characterized by ribs or corrugations with slack material 70 to allow inflation (Ans. 5, 7). The Examiner finds that the outer surface of the inflatable chamber 24 comprises the door panel 27. (Id.). We agree. In particular, Figure 3 of Rust illustrates that the slack material allows the inflatable chambers to expand in width and in all directions with an outward displacement of the wall of the panel (see also Rust col. 3, ll. 26–28; col. 4, ll. 40–46). Appellants argue that packing enough material for the desired shape and volume of the airbag would prevent the operation of the door components (Reply Br. 6). We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument. Rather, Figure 2 of Rust demonstrates a manner in which the slack material may be folded. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 5. Appeal 2012-008026 Application 12/333,765 5 Dependent claims 6–9 Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 6–9 from independent claim 5. We, therefore, also sustain the rejection of claims 6–9. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 5–9, 11, 13, and 14 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh