Ex Parte Vigeant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2012

12021514 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PETER L. VIGEANT, ROBERT A. PARKS, and
DAVID L. GEYER
____________________

Appeal 2010-011929
Application 12/021,514
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011929
Application 12/021,514

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision of the
Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter is directed to systems and methods for
constraining airbag deployment. Claims 1, 10, and 14, reproduced below,
are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An airbag arrangement, comprising
an airbag moveable between an expansion-
constrained position and an expanded position;
a contact face of said airbag; and
a tether having a first tether end connected
adjacent said contact face and a second tether end
anchoring said tether, wherein said tether limits
expansion of a lower portion of said airbag to hold
said contact face in a substantially vertical position
during movement of the airbag to said expanded
position.

10. An airbag arrangement, comprising
an expandable airbag;
a contact face of said airbag; and
a tether having a first tether end
connected to said contact face and a second tether
end for anchoring said tether, wherein said tether
constrains expansion of said airbag to move said
contact face to a substantially vertical position
during an initial deployment.

Appeal 2010-011929
Application 12/021,514

3
14. A method of constraining an airbag
comprising:
(a) anchoring a contact face of an
airbag;
(b) expanding the airbag; and
(c) orienting the contact face during
expansion to contact a chest area of an occupant
and a head area of the occupant at the same time.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kai
Williams
Kogaguchi
US 7,152,875 B2
US 7,195,281 B2
JP H07-069149
Dec. 26, 2006
Mar. 27, 2007
Mar. 14, 19951

REJECTIONS
Appellants seek our review of the following rejections:
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kogaguchi. Ans. 3.
Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Williams. Ans. 4.
Claims 1-6, 9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Williams. Ans. 5.
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kai. Ans. 6.

1 The inventor’s name is presented in field 72 on the reference’s first page as
“小ケ口 晃,” which may be transliterated as “Akira Kogaguchi.” This
reference is referred to in the record as “the ‘149 patent” by Appellants and
as “Japanese Patent ‘149” by the Examiner.
Appeal 2010-011929
Application 12/021,514

4
ANALYSIS
1. Anticipation by Kogaguchi
The Examiner found that Kogaguchi discloses all limitations of claim
10. Ans. 3-4. In particular, the Examiner found that “a substantially vertical
position” is one that is “more than 45 degrees” and that position 10´ in
Kogoguchi’s fig. 4 shows such a substantially vertical position. Id. at 4.
We find that the Examiner’s construction of “a substantially vertical
position” as one that is “more than 45 degrees” is unreasonably broad. The
term “substantially” has been construed in patent claims as “ ‘largely but not
wholly that which is specified.’ ” York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm &
Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572-73 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting Webster’s
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1176 (9th ed. 1983)). In particular,
“substantially vertical” has been construed, in light of the intrinsic evidence,
as meaning “the same as or very close to []vertical” and as referring to a
“deviat[ion] only slightly, if at all, from the vertical.” Amhil Enters. Ltd. v.
Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
In the present case, we find that “substantially vertical” is properly
construed as meaning “the same as or very close to vertical.” The
Examiner’s construction would encompass any position that is even the
slightest bit more vertical than horizontal and thus does not appropriately
limit the scope to “the same as or very close to vertical.” The Examiner’s
construction is also not consistent with Appellants’ disclosure; compare fig.
1 (“prior art”) with fig. 3. For these reasons, we agree with Appellants that
Kogaguchi’s position 10´ is not “a substantially vertical position” and
reverse the rejection of claims 10 and 12 for anticipation by Kogaguchi.

Appeal 2010-011929
Application 12/021,514

5
2. Anticipation by Williams
a. Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18
Appellants argue these claims as a group. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4.
We select claim 14 as representative and decide the appeal with respect to all
claims in this group on the basis of claim 14 alone. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
In response to the Examiner’s finding that Williams anticipates the
subject matter of claim 14 (Ans. 4), Appellants argue that Williams does not
disclose the recited “orienting the contact face during expansion.” App. Br.
6. Instead, Appellants argue that Williams’s contact face “maintains its
orientation throughout expansion.” Id. In response, the Examiner takes the
position that the claim language “orienting … during expansion” does not
exclude the maintaining of the contact face orientation during expansion.
Ans. 9. Appellants further argue that “orienting” in Williams “takes place
before deployment.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the rejection.
The Examiner reasonably found that “orienting the contact face during
expansion” encompasses Williams’s disclosure of a contact face that is
maintained in the specified orientation during expansion. See Ans. 4, 9.
Appellants argue for a narrow construction of “orienting the contact face
during expansion” that in effect requires a change to the orientation during
expansion. See App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. Appellants identify no evidence to
justify this narrow construction, such as usage in the Specification or a
dictionary definition. Although Appellants cite to page 3, lines 15-16 of the
Specification as support for this limitation (App. Br. 3), we find no reference
there to “orienting.” Appellants’ arguments therefore are not persuasive;
Appeal 2010-011929
Application 12/021,514

6
they merely contradict the Examiner’s finding without explaining how or
why it was in error.
b. Claims 1-6, 9, 19, and 20
In response to the Examiner’s finding that Williams discloses all
limitations of claim 1, specifically that tether 92 in figs. 2-4 meets the
claimed “said tether limits expansion of a lower portion of said airbag,”
Appellants argue that tether 92 does not limit a lower portion of the air bag
and instead “moves with the [expanding] airbag.” App. Br. 4. The
Examiner responds:
[T]ether 92 does limit expansion of the bag lower portion
forwardly (compare Figure 2 to Figure 3, and note column 8,
lines 35-46, where in an intermediate expanded condition the
cushion is expanded in a more transverse (vertical) direction 44
and restricted in longitudinal direction 40--the claim language
of claim 1 is so broad that it is met so long as some time during
expansion of the airbag it is restricted).
Ans. 6-7. Appellants note in reply that it is the “inflation of the airbag [that]
draws the release trigger 92 taut.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Williams, col. 8, ll.
58-65).
We agree with Appellants that Williams’s trigger 92 does not meet the
claimed requirement of a tether that limits expansion of a lower portion of
the airbag. The portion of Williams that Appellants cite makes clear that
inflation of the airbag dictates the behavior of trigger 92, not the reverse.
We therefore conclude that the record cannot sustain the rejection of claims
1-6, 9, 19, and 20 for anticipation by Williams.
3. Anticipation by Kai
In response to the Examiner’s finding that Kai discloses all limitations
of claims 1 and 10 (Ans. 6), Appellants argue that Kai’s tethers (fabric
Appeal 2010-011929
Application 12/021,514

7
restricting members 39) “do not alter the vertical orientation of the contact
face of the airbag.” App. Br. 5. The Examiner maintains that Kai’s figure 2
shows the airbag contact face held in a substantially vertical position. Ans.
8. Appellants reply that Kai’s fabric restricting members do not hold the
contact face in a substantially vertical position. Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner erred in finding that Kai’s contact face is held in, or
moved to, a substantially vertical position. As discussed in section 1 supra,
“substantially vertical” is properly construed as “the same as or very close to
vertical.” Kai’s figs. 1 and 2 show that the airbag is positioned to emerge
from the steering wheel at an angle such that the contact face will not be in a
substantially vertical position. Kai therefore does not disclose this
limitation. We accordingly reverse the rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, and 13
for anticipation by Kai.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 8-
10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 is REVERSED, and the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

peb