Ex Parte Smitterberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 5, 2018

14068501 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/068,501 10/31/2013 Eric A. Smitterberg 83389175 8531
28395 7590 03/07/2018
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET
EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER BECK, KAREN JANE AMORES
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing @brookskushman. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC A. SMITTERBERG, EDWARD J. ABRAMOSKI,
and JEFF S. VINTON
Appeal 2017-006291
Application 14/068,5011
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Eric A. Smitterberg et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision (dated Aug. 10, 2016, hereinafter
“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—13, 15, 16, and 19.2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ford Global
Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3 (dated Dec. 6, 2016).
2 Claims 3, 7, 14, 17, and 18 have been canceled. Appeal Br. (Claims App.
1-3).
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 14/068,501
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a vent assembly for an airbag
assembly having an airbag cushion, which includes at least one opening and
at least one panel positionable to partially obstruct the opening. Spec.
Abstract.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are the independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An airbag assembly comprising:
an airbag cushion inflatable by a gas from a stowed
position to a fully deployed position, the airbag cushion defining
at least one opening configured to allow at least a portion of the
gas to exit the airbag cushion, the at least one opening having a
first area;
at least one panel attached to the airbag cushion and
positioned over at least a portion of the at least one opening such
that the at least one panel partially obstructs 30-50% of the at
least one opening; and
at least one vent cover configured to selectively
substantially cover the at least one opening.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. 1) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—12, 15, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Manssart (US
2007/0246922 Al, pub. Oct. 25, 2007).* * 3
3 Although not included in the statement of the rejection, claim 4 is
discussed in the detailed explanation of the rejection. Final Act. 2, 3; Ans. 2,
3.
2
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 14/068,501
II. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Manssart and Breed (US
2008/0243342 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants argue for patentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—12, 15,
and 16 as a group. Appeal Br. 8—9. Appellants do not separately argue for
the patentability of claims 2, 4, 5, 8—12, 15, and 16. See id. at 6—9. We
select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2, 4, 5, 8—12, 15, and 16 stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
For claim 1, the Examiner finds Manssart discloses the recited
combination, except “the at least one panel partially obstructs 30-50% of
the at least one opening.” Final Act. 2—3. “Manssart does not directly
disclose the amount that the one panel partially obstructs the at least one
opening.” Id. at 3. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds, “the drawings [of
Manssart] generally teach the relationship such that the pane obstructs the
opening by 30 — 50%, according to the relationship of each of the radii of the
diaphragm and vent.” Id. “Manssart also teaches that the amount and/or
rate at which gas is released from airbags may be based, at least in part, on
the shape or size of the adaptive vent.” Id. As a result, the Examiner finds a
skilled artisan would have known “the sizes of the diaphragms may be
chosen according to the desired release of gas at different stages, depending
on the pressure in the airbag, and allows the system to be used in different
vehicles or situations.” Id. at 6 (citing Manssart 149); see also Manssart
147. The Examiner determines selecting a size and shape of the panel
3
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 14/068,501
obstructing the opening by 30% to 50% would have been a mere application
of “routine skill in the art.” Ans. 9.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred by placing too much reliance on
the figures in Manssart. Appeal Br. 6—7. Specifically, Appellants assert,
“[bjecause Manssart fails to disclose dimensions or scaling, the drawings of
Manssart cannot teach the claimed panel partially obstructing ‘30—50% of
the at least one opening,’ within the context of the claims.” Id. at 7.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it fails to undermine
the Examiner’s determination that selecting a panel size and shape that
obstructs an opening in the airbag by 30% to 50% is nothing more than an
application of the ordinary skill possessed by an artisan. Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s finding that Manssart discloses an airbag cushion
opening that has an associated cover and panel that restricts the flow of gas
exiting the opening. These are the general conditions of claim 1. Nor do
Appellants dispute that Manssart evidences a skilled artisan knew the size
and shape of the panel positioned over the opening had a direct correlation to
the amount and/or rate at which gas is released from the airbag. Thus, the
Examiner has established the size and shape of the panel obstructing the
opening were known to be “result-effective variables.” “[W]here the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re
Applied Materials Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) quoting In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8—12, 15, and 16.
4
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 14/068,501
Rejection II
For claims 6, 13, and 19, Appellants contend these dependent claims
are patentable because of their dependency from independent claims 1, 9,
and 15, respectively. Appeal Br. 9. Because the rejection of claims 1, 9,
and 15 has been sustained, Appellants fails to apprise us of any error with
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 13, and 19. Therefore, the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims is also sustained.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8—13,
15, 16, and 19.
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
5