Ex Parte Yamaguchi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2004

09526405 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2004)

1 Claims 3, 7, 11 and 12 have been amended subsequent to
final rejection.
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HIROYOSHI YAMAGUCHI and HAJIME SHONO
____________
Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before STAAB, MCQUADE and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Hiroyoshi Yamaguchi et al. appeal from the final rejection
of claims 1 through 6, 8 through 10 and 13 through 15. Claims 7,
11 and 12, the only other claims pending in the application,
stand allowed.1
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to an anti-submarine vehicle seat
device “which can . . . prevent a vehicle occupant from slipping
forward under the seat belt in case of an impact situation such
Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
2
as a vehicle crash” (specification, page 1). Representative
claims 1 and 5 read as follows:
1. A subassembly for a vehicle seat device for raising a
front part of a seat to prevent a vehicle occupant from slipping
forward under a seat belt in an impact situation such as a
vehicle crash, comprising:
a casing adapted to be attached to a seat frame, said casing
including a longitudinally elongated hollow member;
a power actuator fixedly secured in said hollow member; and
an arm pivotally supported by said casing, and adapted to be
actuated by said power actuator.
5. A vehicle seat device for raising a front part of a seat
to prevent a vehicle occupant from slipping forward under a seat
belt in an impact situation such as a vehicle crash, comprising:
at least one subassembly including a casing adapted to be
attached to a seat frame, said casing including a longitudinally
elongated hollow member, a power actuator fixedly secured in said
hollow member, and an arm pivotally supported by said casing and
adapted to be actuated by said power actuator; and
a restraint member fixedly attached to a free end of said
arm so as to be moveable jointly with said arm between a
retracted position and a deployed position.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 6, 8 through 10 and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
6,050,635 to Pajon et al. (Pajon).
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Pajon.
Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
3
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 14 and 16) and to the final rejection and answer (Papers No.
10 and 15) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8
through 10 and 15
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is not necessary that the
reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only
that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or
fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Pajon discloses an anti-submarining device for a vehicle
seat 1, which seat includes a backrest framework 2, a seat pan
framework 3 and a pair of slides 4. In general, the anti-
submarining device includes a cross-member 5 extending
Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
4
transversely between side flanges 30 of the seat pan framework 3
and cylindrical journals 51 on the ends of the cross-member
connected by a cable 7 to a seat belt pyrotechnical pretensioner
6 installed on the side flanges 30. The Figure 5 embodiment
focused on by the examiner also includes a pair of links 9
pivotally mounted on the side flanges 30, stops 10 on the side
flanges for limiting the angular movement of the links, and
secondary grooves 91 in the links for receiving the cylindrical
journals 51. Pajon describes the operation of the device as
follows:
In relation to FIGS. 5 and 6, when a shock on the
vehicle tends to throw the seat user forwards, the
links 9 are then driven by the pretensioner and the
cross-member 5 extends upwards and towards the rear of
the seat, along a trajectory shown by arrow F3, from
its rest position to the extended position.
As soon as the links 9 are secured by the stops
10, as shown on FIG. 8, the cross-member can then
gradually retract towards the inside of the seat, along
the direction shown by arrow F4, in the link
longitudinal direction, under the thrust exerted by the
user’s pelvis. The edges of the secondary groove[s] 91
are then deformed by the journals 51, from a
predetermined threshold, to hold the cross-member in
contact with the user’s thighs [column 5, lines 16
through 29].
In applying Pajon against independent claims 1 and 5 (see
page 2 in the final rejection), the examiner reads the claim
limitations relating to the casing (claims 1 and 5), the power
actuator (claims 1 and 5), the arm (claims 1 and 5) and the
Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
5
restraint member (claim 5) on Pajon’s side flanges 30,
pretensioner 6, links 9 and cross-member 5, respectively.
As framed and argued by the appellants (see page 4 in the
main brief and pages 3 and 4 in the reply brief), the dispositive
issue with respect to the rejection of claim 1 is whether Pajon
meets the limitation in the claim requiring the casing with the
arm pivotally supported thereby to be “adapted to be attached to
a seat frame.” The appellants contend that Pajon’s side flanges
30 with arms or links 9 pivotally supported thereby do not meet
this limitation because the side flanges 30 are part of the seat
frame. This argument is not persuasive, however, because the
side flanges 30, which are part of the seat pan framework 3, are
attached to the backrest framework 2 which itself constitutes “a
seat frame” to the extent broadly recited in claim 1.
Hence, the appellants’ position that the subject matter
recited in claim 1 distinguishes over that disclosed by Pajon is
not well taken. We shall therefore sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by
Pajon.
Claims 3 and 10 depend indirectly from claim 1 and further
define the power actuator as comprising a cylinder/piston
assembly. The appellants contention (see page 5 in the main
Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
6
brief) that Pajon does not meet these limitations is also
unpersuasive. Although Pajon does not expressly describe the
pretensioner 6 as a cylinder/piston assembly, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized it as
such from the illustration thereof in Pajon’s drawings.
Consequently, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 3 and 10 as being anticipated by
Pajon.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 8 and 9 as being anticipated
by Pajon since the appellants have not challenged such with any
reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or
fall with parent claim 1 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of independent claim 5 and its dependent
claims 6 and 15.
As indicated above, claim 5 requires the restraint member to
be “fixedly attached” to the free end of the arm. Since Pajon’s
restraint member (cross-member 5) is movably attached to the free
end of the Pajon’s arm (link 9) via the secondary groove 91 in
the arm and the cylindrical journal 51 on the restraint member,
Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
7
it does not meet this limitation. The examiner’s determination
to the contrary rests on an unreasonable interpretation of the
claim language at issue (see page 4 in the answer).
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 13 and 14
As Pajon does not teach, and would not have suggested, a
vehicle seat device responding to the limitation in parent claim
5 requiring the restraint member to be “fixedly attached” to the
free end of the arm, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 13 and 14 as being
unpatentable over Pajon.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 6, 8
through 10 and 13 through 15 is affirmed with respect to claims 1
through 4 and 8 through 10 and reversed with respect to claims 5,
6 and 13 through 15.
Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
8
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/gjh
Appeal No. 2004-1441
Application No. 09/526,405
9
MACPHERSON, KWOK, CHEN & HEID, LLP
1762 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE
SUITE 226
SAN JOSE, CA 96110