Ex Parte Glover et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2013

11482248 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD GLOVER, STEVEN OLTMAN,
and RICHARD E. McVICKER
____________

Appeal 2010-011715
Application 11/482,248
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and PHILIP J.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011715
Application 11/482,248

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from rejections of claims 1-4
and 12-311, 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The rejected claims are directed to an occupant-restraint system for
use in a vehicle (Spec., paras. [0003]-[0006]). Claims 1, 18, and 28 are the
sole independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An occupant-restraint system for use in a vehicle, the system
comprising
an extensible restraint strap including an upper anchor fastener
adapted to be coupled to an upper anchor included in a vehicle, a
lower anchor fastener adapted to be coupled to a lower anchor
arranged to lie in spaced-apart relation to the upper anchor, and a web
interconnecting the upper and lower anchor fasteners, the web
including a first strap segment coupled to the lower anchor fastener, a
third strap segment coupled to the upper anchor fastener, and a second
strap segment interconnecting the first and third strap segments, and
a controlled-slippage clamp coupled to portions of the first and
third strap segments to form a variable-size web loop comprising the
second strap segment and configured to compress the portions of the
first and third strap segments at a predetermined clamping load to
allow controlled slippage of the web in the controlled-slippage clamp
in response to application of a tugging force to the first strap segment
to reduce the variable-size web loop in size and to increase an
effective length of the extensible restraint strap.

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 7,
2006), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed January 21, 2010), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed June 14, 2010), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed April 15, 2010).
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 5-11 and 32-35, as
indicated on page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2010-011715
Application 11/482,248

3

The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: claims 1-4, 15-20, 22-25,
27, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Smith (U.S.
5,845,372, iss. Dec. 8, 1998); claims 12-14, 21, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith in view of Takada (U.S. 4,371,193, iss.
Feb. 1, 1983); and claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over
Smith.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
We are persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments that Smith does
not disclose the claimed features of
a controlled-slippage clamp coupled to portions of
the first and third strap segments to form a
variable-size web loop comprising the second strap
segment and configured to compress the portions
of the first and third strap segments at a
predetermined clamping load to allow controlled
slippage of the web in the controlled-slippage
clamp in response to application of a tugging force
to the first strap segment to reduce the variable-
size web loop in size and to increase an effective
length of the extensible restraint strap
as recited in independent claim 1. Presumably, with respect to the
interpretation of the claimed “controlled-slippage clamp,” the Examiner
argues that the clamp disclosed in Smith anticipates this feature because
the clamp of Smith . . . is capable of performing
the intended use of the present invention, which is
to control slippage of a vehicle safety belt. Said
slippage control, as taken at its broadest reasonable
Appeal 2010-011715
Application 11/482,248

4
interpretation, can include stopping slippage
altogether or even allowing maximum slippage
(Ans. 6). We agree with Appellants, however, that the correct interpretation
of the claimed “controlled[-]slippage clamp is not [a] zero movement
clamp” (Reply Br. 2), and that
Smith . . . does not disclose any controlled-
slippage clamp . . . . [because the claims] are
directed to a controlled-slippage clamp that
permits controlled-slippage (or movement) of a
strap
(underlining original) (App. Br. 8). This interpretation of “controlled-
slippage clamp” is consistent with the description used throughout
Appellants’ Specification.3 Thus, in view of the foregoing, we must reverse
the rejection of independent claim 1.
Further, the Examiner’s argues, presumably with respect to the
claimed “reduc[tion of] the variable-size web loop in size and . . . increase
. . . [in] effective length of the extensible restraint strap,” that “the clamp of
Smith . . ., while disclosing the structural details of the claimed invention, is
capable of performing the intended use, which in this case constitutes
forming a loop in the section of seat belt” (Ans. 6). We agree with

3 For example, paragraph [0003] of the Specification states “The controlled-
slippage clamp is used to control the rate of deceleration of an occupant
seated in a vehicle seat by extending the effective length of the restraint strap
in a controlled manner during application of a tugging force to the restraint
strap caused by a sudden stoppage or slowdown of the vehicle,” and
paragraph [0004] of the Specification states “Such controlled slippage
allows regulated ‘payout’ of a reserve portion of the restraint strap to
increase the effective length of the restraint strap and thereby control the rate
of deceleration of a vehicle occupant and/or juvenile seat coupled to the
restraint strap.”
Appeal 2010-011715
Application 11/482,248

5
Appellants, however, that the Examiner has not presented evidence
sufficient to support this argument (Reply Br. 2) or provided a citation in the
reference that discloses this. Thus, for this independent reason, we must
reverse the rejection of independent claim 1.
Independent Claim 18
For reasons similar to those discussed above, we are persuaded of
error by Appellants’ arguments that Smith does not disclose the claimed
features of
a controlled-slippage clamp coupled to a portion of
the first strap segment and configured to compress
the portion of the first strap segment at a
predetermined clamping load normally to establish
a web section comprising only the first strap
segment extending between the anchor fastener
and the controlled-slippage clamp and to define an
effective length of the web section to allow
controlled slippage of the web in the controlled-
slippage clamp in response to application of a
tugging force to the first strap segment to increase
the effective length of the web section by using the
first strap segment and at least a portion of the
second strap segment to define the web section
as recited in independent claim 18. Specifically, we agree with Appellants
that Smith does not disclose the claimed “controlled-slippage clamp,” and
the Examiner does not present sufficient evidence to support the argument
that Smith discloses the claimed “increase [of] the effective length of the
web section” or show such a citation in the reference. Thus, in view of the
foregoing, we must reverse the rejection of independent claim 18.

Appeal 2010-011715
Application 11/482,248

6
Independent Claim 28
For reasons similar to those discussed above, we are persuaded of
error by Appellants’ arguments that Smith does not disclose the claimed
features of “a controlled-slippage clamp” as recited in independent claim 28.
Thus, we must reverse the rejection of claim 28.
The Remaining Claims
We must reverse the rejections of the remaining claims, inasmuch as
these claims depend from one of independent claims 1, 18, and 28.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as presented above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4 and 12-31 are REVERSED.

ewh