Ex Parte Clute et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2014

11713945 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/713,945 03/05/2007 Gunter K. Clute 14393-2 (11721-089) 4220
40879 7590 11/19/2014
BGL/Autoliv ASP
3350 AIRPORT ROAD
OGDEN, UT 84405
EXAMINER
MANSEN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GUNTER K. CLUTE, ROBERT A. MICAL, JON E. BURROW1
____________________

Appeal 2012-008571
Application 11/713,945
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 and 4–11. App. Br. 9. Claims 2 and
3 have been cancelled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is AUTOLIV ASP, Inc.
Appeal 2012-008571
Application 11/713,945

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ claims generally relate to an automotive occupant
restraint seat belt retractor, and particularly to a vehicle sensitive control
system for such a retractor. Spec. ¶ 1. One objective of the invention is to
create an improved inertia sensitive retractor control system that is less
sensitive to normally encountered Z-axis accelerations. Id. ¶ 6. Another
objective of the invention is to create a seat belt retractor locking system in
provides two distinct locking modes – a “low g” and a “High G” mode. Id. ¶
7. The claimed locking system uses a rolling ball mass which, when
displaced, engages a locking lever to lock a seat belt retractor. Id. To
achieve less sensitivity to encountered Z-axis accelerations, a mass restrictor
may be positioned to restrict the distance the mass may move along the Z-
axis (i.e. vertically) when subject to Z-axis accelerations, preventing the
mass from engaging the locking lever under such conditions. Id.
Claims on Appeal
Appellants’ substantive arguments are divided into five groups of
claims, but each of the arguments refers back to the arguments related to the
rejection of claim 1. See App. Br. 16–18. Appellants adopt the arguments
for the patentability of claim 1 in all other claim groups, but also present
separate arguments. Ans. 21. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as
representative, see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011), but we also examine
separate arguments for other claim groups as set forth below. Claim 1 is set
forth below:

Appeal 2012-008571
Application 11/713,945

3

1. A seat belt retractor inertial locking system for a seat belt
retractor for locking the retractor through engagement of a
spool lock in response to inertial forces acting on the retractor,
comprising:
a ball cage forming a ball nest surface;
a ball mass positioned on the nest surface and being
displaceable on the nest surface from a normal position to a first
displaced position and to a second displaced position in
response to inertial forces acting on the ball;
a locking lever mounted for pivoting motion about a pivot
point, the locking lever having an engagement feature for
engaging with the retractor spool lock, an upper arm and a
lower arm, the pivot point positioned relative to the center of
gravity of the locking lever such that the locking lever is urged
to pivot under the influence of gravity to cause engagement of
the retractor engagement feature with the spool lock;
the locking lever lower arm having a post support which
contacts the ball mass in the normal position of the ball mass on
the ball nest surface, the ball cage nest surface forming an
aperture through which the lower arm post support extends in
an upward direction to contact the ball mass in the normal
position, and the upper arm forming an actuation rim, wherein,
in response to inertial loads acting on the ball mass moving the
ball mass to the first or second displaced position, the locking
lever engagement feature has a first mode and a second mode,
in the first mode the ball mass moving to the first displaced
position allowing the locking lever to pivot by gravity acting on
the center of gravity without direct contact between the ball
mass and the
locking lever, and in the second mode the ball mass moving to
the second displaced position and making a contact engagement
between the ball mass and the actuation rim; and
a vertical ball restrictor mounted and fixed to the ball cage and
positioned
Appeal 2012-008571
Application 11/713,945

4

above the ball mass, the upper arm of the locking lever being
displaceable relative to the vertical ball restrictor as the locking
lever pivots about the pivot point.
App. Br. 20.

Evidence Considered
Sylven US 4,534,521 Aug. 13, 1985
Knox US 2005/0247135 Nov. 10, 2005

Rejection on Appeal
Appellants seek review of the rejection of claims 1 and 4–11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Knox and Sylven and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 2, as indefinite.
ANALYSIS
(i) Rejection of Claims 1 and 4–11 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 as indefinite. Appellants challenge this rejection.
The Examiner separately rejected claims 6 and 10 under Section 112
for lack of antecedent basis. Appellants do not challenge this rejection, and
as such, we affirm.
We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 and 8 under Section 112 as indefinite is not supported. The Examiner
finds the claim language “the locking lever engagement feature has a first
mode and a second mode” is unclear because the subsequently recited modes
are not modes of operation of the locking lever engagement feature, but
involve other elements of the locking system. Ans. 4. The Examiner points
out “[t]he ball mass 18 is not part of the locking feature 32.” Id. at 8.
Appeal 2012-008571
Application 11/713,945

5

The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is
whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the
claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc., v. Safety
Travel Chairs, 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).
We find the language is clear and understandable to one of skill in the art
such that there is no question as to the metes and bounds of the claimed
invention. While the two modes of the locking lever engagement feature
involve interplay of multiple components, the relationship between these
components is not ambiguous in light of the claim language and the
Specification. Finally, the Examiner cites a non-entered Amendment after
Final as evidence of recognized error. We decline to consider this non-
entered Amendment because it is not before us.

(ii) Rejection of claim 1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants make four primary arguments alleging Examiner error.
See App. Br. 12–13. We address each in turn.
Appellants first argue “Knox does not have a lower lever arm or a
center of gravity such that the locking lever is urged to pivot toward
engagement under the influence of gravity.” App. Br. 12. Appellant also
contends that Knox could not be so modified because doing so would make
the arrangement non-functional. Id.
The Examiner responds by noting Knox is not relied on as teaching
the lower lever arm and the proposed modification requires the use of
Sylven’s lower mass-engaging arm as well as adopting Sylven’s biasing
rotation into the structure of Knox. Ans. 10.
Appeal 2012-008571
Application 11/713,945

6

We agree with the Examiner. While Appellants contend the biasing
of Knox is away from engagement in the locking position, these arguments
are irrelevant in light of the combination actually adopted by the Examiner.
The Examiner relies not only on the lower arm structure of Sylven in the
combination, but also Sylven’s gravity bias toward locking. See Sylven Fig.
4 (lower arm 16 and mass 23 creating a bias toward engagement with detent
wheel 19); Ans. 6 (“Sylven teaches positioning a pivot point 15 for the
locking lever 14 relative to the center of gravity of the locking lever such
that the locking lever is urged to pivot under the influence of gravity to
cause engagement of a retractor engagement feature . . . .”); see also Id. at
12 (“all that would be required is to add the lower arm (corresponding to 16
in Sylven) and the biasing mass (23 in Fig. 4 of Sylven) to the locking lever
106 of Knox . . . .”). As such, we find Appellants’ contentions related to
Knox’s biasing and lack of lower arm unpersuasive.
Second, Appellants contend Knox and Sylven cannot be combined
without destroying the intended functions of the disclosed components
because Knox is gravity-biased away from engagement, while Sylven is
gravity-biased toward engagement. App. Br. 12, 14. Appellants point out
that the claims require two distinct engagement modes, where in the first
mode the ball mass is capable of moving into a displaced position without
contact between the ball mass and the locking lever. Id. at 14. In contrast,
the rim disclosed in Knox is in constant contact with the ball mass, thus
preventing the first engagement mode. Id. at 15. Appellants also argue the
Knox device provides only one mode of actuation caused by the horizontal
displacement of the ball mass. Id. at 13 (argument 4). We disagree with
Appellants arguments.
Appeal 2012-008571
Application 11/713,945

7

As noted by the Examiner in the Final Office Action, Knox teaches an
embodiment where the rim or upper arm is not in contact with ball, as
depicted by the dashed lines of Figure 3. See Final Office Action, 6 (July
27, 2011). Once Sylven’s lower lever arm with a post for resting the ball is
integrated into Knox, there would be separation between the rim or upper
arm and the ball as explained and depicted in Sylven. Figure 4 of Sylven is
depicted below.

Figure 4 of Sylven is a vertical sectional view of an embodiment of
the inertia sensor.
Figure 4 details how mass (23) forms part of the bell crank (14) such that the
bell crank is biased toward engaging the arm (16) at end point (17). See col.
3, ll. 24–33. In a lower horizontal acceleration mode (identical to
Appellants’ “low g” mode) the ball (12) will be displaced from the rest
position allowing arm (18) to rotate into a locked position with the detent
wheel (19). In this mode, Sylven explains, “[t]here is still a space between
the protrusion 22 on the arm 18 and the ball 12, and as will be understood,
this means that the sensor is of the passive type in accordance with the
definition given above.” Col. 2, ll. 56–60. Compare Sylven, col. 3, ll. 3–23
(describing the “active sensor” mode where “the ball 12 will then come into
Appeal 2012-008571
Application 11/713,945

8

contact with the protrusion 22” as depicted in Fig. 3). Thus, Sylven teaches
the dual mode of engagement as claimed by the Appellants. The
combination of Knox and Sylven would not destroy the intended function of
either reference, but simply allows the sensor of Knox to also adopt the low
acceleration (“passive”) mode as taught by Sylven.
Thirdly, Appellants allege “[t]he Sylven device suffers the
disadvantage which the present invention specifically seeks to overcome;
namely, Z-axis nuisance actuation . . . . Sylven device cannot be modified to
reduce Z-axis sensitivity without changing multiple fundamental features.”
App. Br. 13. We disagree with Appellants premise.
The Examiner relies on Knox as teaching the claimed vertical ball
restrictor positioned above the ball mass. Ans. 6; see also Knox Fig. 4
(vertical ball restrictor 110 to limit Z-axis actuation). Thus, we find
Appellant’s arguments directed to Sylven, while ignoring Knox, are
unpersuasive. Appellants offer no persuasive explanation why Sylven’s
combination with Knox would negatively impact the vertical ball restrictor
as admittedly taught by Knox.
Appellants raise an argument in the Reply Brief claiming the
Examiner’s discussion of “the old and well known ball-type sensor” was an
improper reliance on prior art not of record and a new grounds for rejection.
See Reply Br. 3, 4. We have considered these arguments but find them
unpersuasive because the Examiner, while discussing an old and well known
ball-type sensor, does not actually rely on such a sensor in the combination
of Knox and Sylven. See Ans. 5, 6, 8–10. We find the Examiner’s
discussion of the old and well known ball-type sensor to be background
Appeal 2012-008571
Application 11/713,945

9

information unnecessary to the actual combination relied on for the rejection
made pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

(iii) Rejection of claims 4–11 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Because Appellants’ arguments against the rejection of claims 5 and 8
(group B, p. 16), claims 4 and 9 (group C, p. 16), and claims 7 and 11 (group
E, p. 18) fail to identify specific errors in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion, they are unpersuasive and, accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of those claims.
With respect to claims 6 and 10 (group D, p. 17), Appellants argue
that neither Knox or Sylven make any mention of differing modes being a
function of differing magnitudes of acceleration, stating that Sylven uses the
terms “passive” and “active” to describe different modes of operation. App.
Br. 17. The language of claim 6 correlates the two locking modes of
operation to “a low g actuation condition” and “to a high g actuation
condition.” Id. at 21, and 23 (claim 10 adopting the same language).
Regardless of the nomenclature chosen by Sylven, and whether or not
Sylven intended to dictate a low g and high g distinction, these two
conditions are taught by Sylven in the same manner as Appellants’ claims.
See Sylven, col. 2, ll. 56–60 and col. 3, ll. 3–23, claim 1 (elements (g) and
(h)). In a high acceleration environment, the rolling mass of Sylven will
force actuation of the detent wheel by the upper arm. See Fig. 3 (ball mass
(12) engaging element (22) to move arm (18) into engagement with detent
wheel (19)). In conditions where the acceleration may be insufficient for the
rolling mass to force the upper arm into engagement, Sylven sets forth
another mode of actuation where the rolling mass disengages the end of the
Appeal 2012-008571
Application 11/713,945

10

lower arm (see Fig. 4, end of arm (17)) and the gravity bias (based upon
mass (23)) forces rotation of arm into engagement with the detent wheel.
There is simply no difference in the structure and function of Sylven’s
teachings and the scope of Appellants’ claimed invention with respect to the
two modes of operation.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11 as
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 6 and 10 under Section 112
for lack of antecedent basis.
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 4–11 pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 and
4–11. Since at least one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is
affirmed, the decision of the Examiner 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

rvb