Ex Parte HashimotoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201712673179 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation