Ex Parte Strutz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 21, 201411708821 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TORSTEN STRUTZ, JÖRG WINKLER, PETER BAUMANN, and ANDRE LESCHKE ____________________ Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 9, 10, and 13-24. Claims 1-8, 11, and 12 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to a belt buckle for a motor vehicle, wherein the belt buckle is configured to receive a tongue of a seat belt and wherein an insertion status of the tongue is detectable with a switch (Spec. 1, [0002]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS Claims 9 and 18 are exemplary: 9. In combination with a motor vehicle having a vehicle floor, vehicle seats and a seat belt with a tongue, a belt buckle configuration comprising: a belt buckle configured to mechanically receive the tongue of the seat belt; a switch operatively connected to said belt buckle, said switch being configured to detect an insertion status of the tongue of the seat belt; a communicating device operatively connected to said switch; and a receiver circuit operatively connected to said communicating device, said communicating device including a passive transmitter and being configured to wirelessly communicate a switch position of said switch to said receiver circuit, said receiver circuit emitting electromagnetic waves and said passive transmitter extracting energy from the electromagnetic waves emitted by said receiver circuit, said Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 3 receiver circuit including a respective coil disposed in the vehicle floor under each respective one of the vehicle seats. 18. In combination with a motor vehicle having a seat belt with a tongue, a belt buckle configuration comprising: a belt buckle configured to mechanically receive the tongue of the seat belt; a switch operatively connected to said belt buckle, said switch being configured to detect an insertion status of the tongue of the seat belt; a communicating device operatively connected to said switch, said communicating device including an electromechanical energy converter and a transmitting device, said electromechanical energy converter including an induction generator, said induction generator generating energy when said switch changes a switch position and supplying the energy to said transmitting device; said induction generator including a magnet and a coil; said belt buckle including a belt buckle spring configured to provide a movement during latching or releasing the tongue such that said magnet and said coil move relative to one another for inducing a voltage; and a receiver circuit operatively connected to said communicating device, said communicating device being configured to wirelessly communicate the switch position of said switch to said receiver circuit. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Steffens US 6,025,783 Feb. 15, 2000 Stevenson US 2004/0119599 A1 Jun. 24, 2004 Cheung US 2005/0151375 A1 Jul. 14, 2005 Tang US 2007/0139173 A1 Jun. 21, 2007 (filed Dec. 21, 2005) Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 4 Federspiel EP 1 588 908 A1 Oct. 26, 2005 Claims 9, 10, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steffens and Tang. Claim 14 stands rejected under 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steffens, Tang and Stevenson. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steffens, Tang and Federspiel. Claims 18, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevenson, Cheung and Official Notice. Claim 20 stands rejected under 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevenson, Cheung, Official Notice and Tang. Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevenson, Official Notice, Cheung and Federspiel. II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in finding: 1. Steffens in view of Tang teaches or would have suggested a “receiver circuit including a respective coil disposed in the vehicle floor under each respective one of the vehicle seats” (claim 9, emphases added); and 2. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Stevenson’s switch detection system in a belt buckle configuration with Cheung’s power harvester including a coil and a magnet to arrive at Appellants’ belt buckle configuration comprising a “communication device” Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 5 including an “electromechanical energy converter” including an “induction generator” that includes “a magnet and a coil” such that “said magnet and said coil move relative to one another for inducing a voltage” (claim 18). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Tang 1. Tang relates to determining passenger buckle-up status ([0001]), wherein Figure 2 is reproduced below: Figure 2 shows a base station 30 mounted within a vehicle such as directly below the seat assembly 12 ([0012]). Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 6 2. Tang’s Figure 4 is reproduced below: Figure 4 shows base station 30 in further detail, wherein the base station 30 comprises a base station transponder 34 in communication with at least one base station antenna 36, 38, 40 to receive the unique identification signals and the base station antenna 36 is in close proximity to the transponder antenna in the seat buckle to ensure proper communication (¶ [0012]). Cheung 3. Cheung discloses an autonomous power source which converts motion into energy for use in a tire-pressure monitoring system ([0008]), including a coil, a magnet, and a low-friction ferrofluidic bearing in contact with the magnet, arranged such that the magnet and coil move with respect to each other when the structure is in motion such that an electrical current is produced in the coil (Abstract). Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 7 IV. ANALYSIS Claims 9, 10, and 13-17 As for claim 9, Appellants contend “there is still no teaching in Tang that the antenna coils 38 must also be placed underneath a vehicle seat” since “the antenna coils 38 and base station 30 are separate elements” (App. Br. 8, emphasis added). According to Appellants, “Tang merely teaches positioning them in ‘close proximity’ to the seat belt assemblies 16” (id.). However, the Examiner finds “Tang discloses that a base station is disposed underneath a vehicle seat” wherein “[a] base station… includes at least one base station antenna in wireless communication with the wireless transponder” (Ans. 15). Thus, the Examiner finds “because the base station includes the base station antenna, and the base station is dispose[d] underneath a vehicle seat; Tang discloses that a base station antenna is disposed underneath a vehicle seat” (id.). We agree with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. In particular, Tang discloses a passenger buckle-up determining system that comprises a base station disposed underneath a vehicle seat (FF 1). Contrary to Appellants’ argument that “the antenna coils 38 and base station 30 are separate elements” (App. Br. 8, emphasis omitted), the base station comprises base station antennas/coils (FF 2). We agree with the Examiner that “because the base station includes the base station antenna, and the base station is dispose[d] underneath a vehicle seat; Tang discloses that a base station antenna [coil] is disposed underneath a vehicle seat” (Ans. 15). Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 8 Furthermore, although Appellants contend “there is still no teaching in Tang that the antenna coils 38 must also be placed underneath a vehicle seat” and that “Tang merely teaches positioning them in ‘close proximity’ to the seat belt assemblies 16” (App. Br. 8, emphasis added), because the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the applied references, the test for obviousness is not what Tang must disclose, as Appellants argue, but what Tang when combined with Steffens would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court guides that the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Thus, even assuming, arguendo, Tang did not disclose antenna coils comprised within the base stations (FF 2), Appellants have presented no evidence that providing the antenna coils (placed in close proximity to the belt buckle) within the base station underneath the vehicle seat (in close proximity to the belt buckle) would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR 550 U.S. at 418). The skilled artisan is “[a] person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 over Steffens and Tang. Appellants do not provide arguments for claims 10, and 13-17 (App. Br. 13). Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 13, and 15 over Steffens and Tang; the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 over Steffens and Tang in further Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 9 view of Stevenson; and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17 over Steffens and Tang in further view of Federspiel. Claims 18-24 As to claim 18, Appellants contend “Cheung discloses the basic principle of an induction generator… for tire pressure monitoring applications” (App. Br. 11). According to Appellants, “Cheung does not disclose or suggest that a belt buckle spring can be configured to provide a movement during a latching or releasing of a tongue . . .” such that “the magnet and the coil move relative to one another for inducing a voltage” (id.). In particular, although Appellants concede “the use of springs in belt buckles for mechanical purposes such as mechanically biasing a latch is known . . .” Appellants contend “there is no disclosure or motivation in Cheung to use the movement of a spring during latching or releasing the tongue for moving a magnet and a coil relative to one another for the purpose of inducing a voltage” (App. Br. 12). Although we agree with the Examiner that it “is well known in the art for seat belts to contain springs” and that “[i]t is well known that when the speed of the relative motion of the magnet and the coil increase, the developed voltage is maximized” (Ans. 18), we cannot find any suggestion in the Examiner’s recited portion of Stevenson and Cheung that the combination teaches or fairly suggests a belt buckle configuration comprising a “communication device” including an “electromechanical energy converter” including an “induction generator” that includes “a magnet and a coil” such that “said magnet and said coil move relative to one another for inducing a voltage” as recited in claim 18. Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 10 More particularly, although Cheung discloses a power source which converts motion into energy that includes a coil and a magnet arranged such that the magnet and coil move with respect to each other when the structure is in motion such that an electrical current is produced in the coil (FF 3), the power is for use in a such systems as a tire-pressure monitoring system (id). We are unsure, and the Examiner does not provide a reason, as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify a switch detection system with the use of the springs/coils in belt buckles for mechanically biasing a latch as taught by Stevenson, with the teachings of Cheung of providing a coil and magnet such that “said magnet and said coil move relative to one another for inducing a voltage” (claim 18). As the Examiner finds, it “is well known in the art for seat belts to contain springs” and that “[i]t is well known that when the speed of the relative motion of the magnet and the coil increase, the developed voltage is maximized” (Ans. 18). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Stevenson with the teachings of Cheung to arrive at the claimed “induction generator” in a “belt buckle configuration” (claim 18) that includes a magnet and a coil “such that said magnet and said coil move relative to one another for inducing a voltage” (Ans. 18). However, to affirm the Examiner’s proffered motivation would require us to resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We are of the view that the belt buckle and switch arrangement of Stevenson (see Ans. 9) would not have been reasonably modified by an artisan with the teachings of Cheung’ special purpose system that generates electrical power in a rotating wheel for a tire-pressure monitoring system Appeal 2011-013302 Application 11/708,821 11 (FF 3) to render obvious the claimed switch and inductively powered transmitting device in a belt buckle. (Claim 18). We will not resort to hindsight reconstruction, speculation, or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the proffered motivation in order to support the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 and claims 19, 21, and 22 standing therewith (App. Br. 11) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Stevenson, Cheung and Official Notice. The Examiner does not explain how Tang and Federspiel would have cured the deficiencies of Stevenson, Cheung and Official Notice discussed above. Accordingly, we are also constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 over Stevenson, Cheung, Official Notice further in view of Tang, and of claims 23 and 24 over Stevenson, Official Notice, Cheung further in view of Federspiel. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed; and of claims 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation