Ex Parte Hashimoto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

12673179 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017)

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.
12/673,179 02/12/2010 Syuzo Hashimoto 03284.0110-00000 6440
22852 7590 06/01/2017
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
LI, CE LI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2017 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):
regional-desk @ finnegan. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SYUZO HASHIMOTO
Appeal 2015-004498
Application 12/673,179
Technology Center 3600
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JILL D. HILL, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 19—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We are informed that the real party in interest is Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki
Kaisha.
Appeal 2015-004498
Application 12/673,179
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a vehicle occupant protection device. Spec.
11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim and
illustrates the claimed subject matter (internal numbering added):
1. A vehicle occupant protection device comprising:
a seat adjustment section that adjusts a state of a seat to an
appropriate state;
a belt adjustment section that adjusts a tension of a
seatbelt;
a judgment section that judges whether or not there is a
need to adjust the state of the seat and the tension of the seatbelt;
and
a control section that controls the seat adjustment section
and the belt adjustment section so as (1) to start adjustment by
the belt adjustment section after adjustment by the seat
adjustment section is stopped, or so as (2) to start adjustment by
the belt adjustment section after adjustment by the seat
adjustment section is started and stop adjustment by the seat
adjustment section at a point when a time when a predetermined
tension starts to be applied to the seatbelt due to adjustment by
the belt adjustment section has been reached, in a case where it
has been judged by the judgment section that there is a need to
adjust the state of the seat and the tension of the seatbelt.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Takagi US 2001/0040065 A1 Nov. 15,2001
Tsuruta US 2006/0001298 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Takagi et al. (Takagi).
2
Appeal 2015-004498
Application 12/673,179
II. Claims 2, 22, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takagi.
III. Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Tsuruta.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Takagi discloses all the limitations in
claim 1. Appellant contests whether Takagi discloses a “control section” as
claimed in claim 1. Because claim 1 recites “or” alternative language, we
conclude the Examiner need not provide prior art evidence teaching or
suggesting both step (1) and step (2) in claim 1 under a broad but reasonable
interpretation. Consistent with the use of alternative language, the Examiner
gave little weight to alternative (2). See Ans. 2. Appellant argues that
Takagi fails to disclose step (2) (Br. 9-10), but this does not address the
Examiner’s rejection which focused on step (1) and so is not persuasive.
Appellant also contends that Takagi fails to disclose step (1). Step (1)
requires “a control section that controls the seat adjustment section and the
belt adjustment section so as to start adjustment by the belt adjustment
section after adjustment by the seat adjustment section is stopped.” Br. 19,
Claims App. The Examiner relies on Figures 13 and 27 of Takagi, which
are flow charts. The Examiner finds that shoulder belt retraction steps S5
and S6 occur after the seat adjustment steps S35 and S3 6 are complete.
Appellant contends that “nowhere does Takagi disclose that S5 and S6 start
seatbelt adjustment after S35 and S36 are stopped.” Br. 10-11.
We agree with Appellant. A thorough review of Takagi shows that
steps S35 and S36 are started before either steps S5 and S6 or steps S27 and
3
Appeal 2015-004498
Application 12/673,179
S28 are started, but there is no disclosure or requirement that steps S35 and
S36 be completed before the subsequent steps are started.
Accordingly, because Takagi does not disclose a relationship between
stopping the seat adjustment (steps S3 5 and S3 6) and starting the seatbelt
adjustment (steps S5 and S6 or steps S27 and S28), the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
All the remaining claims depend directly or indirectly on claim 1, and
the rejections of these claims rely on the finding that Takagi discloses step
(1). See Final Act. 4—6. Because we conclude this finding is in error, the
rejections of claims 2 and 19—24 are reversed.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 19—24 are reversed.
REVERSED
4