Ex Parte Singhal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

12655392 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/655,392
103550 7590
Tara Chand Sighal
P.O. Box 5075
Torrance, CA 90510
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/30/2009 Tara Chand Singhal
07113/2016
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11195.144 5584
EXAMINER
MORAN, KATHERINE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3765
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TARA CHAND SINGHAL
Appeal2014-007078
Application 12/655,392
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, BEYERL Y M. BUNTING, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Tara Chand Singhal (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the August 22, 2013 Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-
16, 19, and 20. 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but have not been rejected. Final Act. 6.
Appeal2014-007078
Application 12/655,392
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Appellant's invention is related to a motorcycle rider safety harness
having multiple airbags positioned thereon. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below from page 16 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A motorcycle rider safety harness comprising:
the safety harness made of straps of flexible, durable, and
light weight material that is worn around specific parts of a
human body to include shoulders, lower spine, hip joint, two
elbows and two knees;
the safety harness has positioned on it seven separate
airbags that correspond to these specific human body joints in
size and shape that of, lower spine and hip joint, two shoulders,
two elbows, and two knees that would bear the primary impact
of a falling motorcycle rider in an accidental separation of the
rider from the motorcycle;
the airbags are connected by tubing means to an inflation
means that can flow compressed gas to the seven airbags for
inflation of the airbags.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
McGee us 4,089 ,065 May 16, 1978
Pusic us 5,535,446 July 16, 1996
Davidson US 2003/0182040 Al Sept. 25, 2003
Uchida US 2009/0019623 Al Jan.22,2009
Galindo WO 2000/011979 Al Mar. 9, 2000
2
Appeal2014-007078
Application 12/655,392
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Pusic.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pusic and McGee.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pusic, McGee, and Davidson.
Claims 14--16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Uchida and Galindo.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection Based on Pusic
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Pusic discloses all of the elements of
independent claim 1, including, inter alia, a harness that "has positioned on
it seven separate airbags that correspond to specific human body joints, that
of lower spine and hip joint (at 10), two shoulders (at 4,5), two elbows (at 9),
and two knees (at 12)." Final Act. 2-3. Appellant disagrees, arguing that
"Pusic uses many inflatable air strips," but "Pusic does not teach use of
seven specific airbags sized to a [sic] seven different body joint [sic] and
positioned on these specific body joints." App. Br. 10-11. The Examiner
answers by stating "Pusic' s device is considered as a harness worn on a body
and has straps extending between airbags (airbags corresponding to body
joints at 4,5,9,10,12)" and "[t]he air strips to which Appellant refers are
considered as equivalent to the claimed airbags in that the claims do not
recite further structure for the airbags." Ans. 2-3. Appellant replies by
3
Appeal2014-007078
Application 12/655,392
making statements regarding the broadest reasonable interpretation claim
construction standard and argues that the Examiner misconstrued several
claim terms, stating that the "aspects of a generic air bag for one of ordinary
skill in the art from Pusic and McGee's teaching use of air bag for a safety
harness are different and distinguishable from the claimed subject matter
read in light of the specification or consistent with the specification." Reply
Br. 5-11.
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive for the reasons cited by
the Examiner. Pusic discloses "inflatable air strips and two inflators" (Pusic,
3:32-33) that, when the motorcyclist separates from the motorcycle, "inflate
the strips to a certain predetermined pressure before the motorcyclist collides
with the pavement or some other object" (id. at 5:65---67). The Pusic
protective device includes airbags positioned at the user's spine (id. at 4: 17),
hips (id. at 4: 19-20), shoulders (id. at 3:55-56), elbows (id. at 3:66---67), and
knees (id. at 4:11-12). Thus, Pusic discloses seven airbags corresponding to
these joints of the human body.
Appellant's contentions in the Reply Brief, regarding the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard, were neither raised in the Appeal Brief
nor supported by citation to evidence of record. As such, we treat these
arguments as untimely and unpersuasive. 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2); Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474--75 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (clarifying
that "the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could
have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's
rejections, but were not" and that "the failure to raise all issues and
arguments diligently, in a timely fashion, has consequences"); In re Geisler,
4
Appeal2014-007078
Application 12/655,392
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that arguments or conclusory
statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie rejection).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 as being anticipated by Pusic.
Claims 2-7
Appellant does not make any other substantive argument regarding
the rejection of claims 2--4, each of which depends directly from claim 1.
See App. Br. 10-11. Appellant also does not make any other substantive
argument regarding the rejection of independent claim 5 or claims 6 and 7,
each of which depends directly from claim 5. See id. Therefore, we
likewise sustain the rejection of claims 2-7.
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Pusic and McGee
The Examiner finds that Pusic substantially discloses the invention of
claims 8-12, but does not disclose tubing means. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner relies on McGee to teach this feature, concluding that it would
have been obvious to a skilled artisan "to provide Pusic' s garment with the
tubing means as taught by McGee to prevent complete failure of the
inflating process by having a tubing means for each airbag." Id. at 3--4.
Appellant disagrees, stating that "Applicant respectfully submits that given
the knowledge of Pusic and McGee, the claimed subject matter using
separate seven [sic] airbags for seven different joints of the human body
would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art." App. Br. 11.
We find this argument unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above-
5
Appeal2014-007078
Application 12/655,392
namely, Pusic discloses seven airbags for different joints of the human body.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 8-12.
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Pusic, McGee, and Davidson
The Examiner finds that Pusic substantially discloses the invention of
claim 13, but does not disclose a control module having a status panel. Final
Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Davidson to teach this feature, concluding
that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan "to provide Pusic' s
module with the [Davidson] status panel as a visual indicator for monitoring
the function of the module." Id. Appellant expressly relies on the
arguments previously presented regarding the rejection of claims 5 and 8.
App. Br. 13. Accordingly, for the same reasons as discussed above, we also
sustain the rejection of claim 13.
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Uchida and Galindo
Claim 14
The Examiner finds that Uchida substantially discloses the invention
of claim 14, including, inter alia, "multiple airbags 2a,2b shaped and sized
to correspond to specific locations of a lower spine, hip, and two shoulder
joints," but does not "teach the airbag that corresponds to the human body
joints of the elbows and knees and seven separate airbags that correspond to
specific human body joints." Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner relies on
Galindo to "teach[] that it is known to provide separate airbags at these
locations in that these parts of the body are vulnerable upon impact," and
concludes that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan "to modify
Uchida's harness to provide straps worn around two elbows and knees such
6
Appeal2014-007078
Application 12/655,392
that the airbags correspond to the body joints of the elbows and knees in that
these areas are known as vulnerable body joints" and "to provide seven
separate airbags in that each airbag may be replaced if necessary without
replacing the entire harness device." Id. at 5---6. The Examiner also finds
that "the placement of the air bags is recited functionally as 'shaped and
sized to correspond to specific human body joints that of, lower spine and
hip joint, two shoulders, two elbows and two knees."' Ans. 9.
Appellant argues that "while the use of airbags to protect human body
is well known in prior art, as evidenced by these prior art [Uchida and
Galindo], the specific use and manner of use of a safety harness with seven
different airbags for seven different body joints would not be obvious."
App. Br. 14. Appellant also broadly asserts that the "rejections are improper
under 35 USC 103(a) and Graham v. Deere." Id. at 14--15. Appellant
further makes several assertions regarding a person of ordinary skill in the
art:
A person of ordinary skill in the art of air bags and
knowledgeable in the use of air bags on the human body is not
knowledgeable of the human-factors aspect of a device ....
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not
knowledgeable in the specific physics of accidental separation
of the human body from a motor cycle ....
Yet further, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not
knowledgeable in the type and degree of impact on different
parts of the human body and potential of damage on these parts
of the human body, in an accidental separation of the rider ....
While a person of ordinary skill in the art can make use
of the knowledge in the field to develop safety harnesses using
airbags, such a person cannot develop a safety harness with the
unique features of the claimed subject matter.
7
Appeal2014-007078
Application 12/655,392
The claimed subject matter is directed to address these
specific problem objectives of light weight and easier to use
and these are not in the purview of a person of ordinary skill
[sic] person who is knowledgeable in use of airbags for
protecting a human body.
Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. As noted by the
Examiner (see Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 8-9), Galindo teaches placement of
inflatable reinforcements (that is, airbags) at "the areas most susceptible to
injuries such as ... neck, elbows, wrists, knees, shoulders, as well as areas
front, rear and side of the body, in order to minimize possible injuries that
the rider could suffer in all possible forms of accident." Galindo 4
(emphasis added). Thus, Galindo teaches-and provides motivation to
modify the Uchida harness to include-airbags positioned at the elbows and
knees. Appellant's broad assertions do not apprise us of any error in the
Examiner's reasoning.
Appellant's contentions in the Reply Brief, regarding a person of skill
in the art, were neither raised in the Appeal Brief nor supported by citation
to evidence of record. As such, we treat these arguments as untimely and
unpersuasive. 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2); Borden, 93 USPQ2d at 1474--75;
Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 14 as being unpatentab le over Uchida and
Galindo.
8
Appeal2014-007078
Application 12/655,392
Claims 15, 16, 19, and 20
Appellant does not make any other substantive argument regarding
the rejection of claims 15, 16, 19, and 20, each of which depends directly
from claim 14. See App. Br. 13-15. Therefore, we likewise sustain the
rejection of claims 15, 16, 19, and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-16, 19, and 20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9