10904845 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)

Ex Parte Tracht

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 13, 2012

10904845 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)

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. 10/904,845 12/01/2004 Michael L. Tracht LEAR 05237 PUS 1845 34007 7590 03/13/2012 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION 1000 TOWN CENTER TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER TO, TOAN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3616 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/13/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL L. TRACHT ____________________ Appeal 2009-010633 Application 10/904,845 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Michael L. Tracht (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu (US 6,045,151, iss. Apr. 4, 2000) and Dick (6,588,838 B1, iss. Jul. 8, 2003). Claims 1-8 and 13-16 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2009-010633 Application 10/904,845 2 THE INVENTION Claim 9, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 9. A vehicle seat assembly, comprising: a frame; a pad formed of a shaped foam polymer material, the pad defining a pocket; a air bag restraint sub-assembly being placed in the pocket and assembled to the frame, the restraint sub-assembly having a housing in which an air bag and an inflator are received, the housing having a split line, wherein upon inflation of the air bag by the inflator, the air bag is deployed through the split line; a trim cover assembled to the pad that substantially encloses the frame, the pad and the restraint sub-assembly, the trim cover having a tear seam that opens when the air bag is deployed; a reinforcement panel extends partially around at least one side of the housing and between the housing and a wall of the pocket, the reinforcement panel being held in engagement with the frame by the inflator, wherein the reinforcement panel is secured to the trim cover at a location near the tear seam, the reinforcement panel protecting the pad when the air bag is deployed and channeling the air bag during deployment across the reinforcement panel between the trim cover and the reinforcement panel toward the tear seam. OPINION Appellant argues claims 9, 10, and 12 as a group. App. Br. 3. We select claim 9 as representative, and claims 10 and 12 stand or fall with claim 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appellant offers Appeal 2009-010633 Application 10/904,845 3 additional arguments for dependent claim 11 which we address separately. App. Br. 5-7. The Examiner found that Wu discloses the claimed vehicle seat assemble except for the air bag restrain sub-assembly housing having a split line. Ans. 4. The Examiner found that Dick teaches such a split line, and concluded that the claimed invention would have been obvious in light of the two references’ teachings. Id. Appellant’s contentions are directed to the recited reinforcement panel and the Examiner’s application of Wu in that regard. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 5) that Wu fails to disclose channeling the air bag between the trim cover and the reinforcement panel. As the Examiner found, Wu discloses a sleeve 86 formed of two sheet material pieces 83 and 85. Ans. 5; Wu col. 6, ll. 31-39; figs. 3, 3A, 3B. Trim cover members 40 and 42 each are wrapped around the end of the respective sheet material pieces, and the two trim cover/sheet material piece pairs are joined by a thread 92 forming seam 48 (which fails upon deployment, thus serving as the recited “tear seam”). Wu col. 6, 41- 45, 63-67; fig. 3B. Wu’s assembly is configured such that the air bag deploys between the two pairs. See figs. 3, 3B. The Examiner reasons that one trim cover member (i.e. 40) and the opposing side’s sheet material piece (i.e. 83) correspond, respectively, to the claimed trim cover and reinforcement panel. Ans. 5. Contrary to Appellant’s contention (App. Br. 2), the Examiner’s application of the claim language to Wu is not based on an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim. Appellant’s “teach away” argument (Reply Br. 6-7), premised on the same contentions, also is not persuasive. We sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 12. Appeal 2009-010633 Application 10/904,845 4 Claim 11 calls for “the reinforcement panel being sewn to one of the doubled back edges of the trim cover.” Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, as highlighted by Appellant’s inclusion of words not found in the claim itself. See, e.g., App. Br. 5 (“As claimed, the reinforcement panel is sewn to one of the doubled back edges of the trim cover, with the other doubled back edge of the trim cover not being sewn to a reinforcement panel.”) (emphasis added); id. at 6 (“In Appellant’s claim construction, with the reinforcement panel being sewn to only one side of the tear seam and the other side of the tear seam is formed only by the doubled back cover material, whereby the air bag is not restrained on one side and the trim cover is loaded in tension by the inflating air bag.”) (emphasis added). We decline to read into the claim the negative limitations suggested by Appellant. Appellant has not pointed to an error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 and we sustain this rejection. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-12 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 nlk