Ex Parte Kismir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

12601450 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/601,450 01114/2010
114325 7590 03/22/2018
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Autoliv)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Altay Kismir
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
8952-000103/US/NP 7525
EXAMINER
CHOI, PETER Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AL TAY KISMIR, WILLHELM HEINRICHS, BRIAN PARRY,
KERI KENNEDY, and KEVIN SMITH
Appeal2017-003222
Application 12/601,450
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 41---64. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed November 23, 2009; Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") dated December 16, 2015; Appellants' Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") dated July 20, 2016; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated
October 21, 2016, and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated
December 20, 2016.
2 Appellants identify Autoliv Development AB as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-003222
Application 12/601,450
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a woven fabric, such as may be used in
forming vehicle safety airbags. Spec. 1:4--7. The described fabric includes
visible markings provided by contrasting colored yams, such that the
markings are detectable by automatic cutting equipment. Id. at 3:8-10.
Independent claims 41 and 63 illustrate the subject matter on appeal:
41. A fabric web comprising:
a first plurality of yams having a majority colour;
a second plurality of yams having a contrasting, minority
colour that contrasts with the majority colour of the first
plurality of the yams; and
a plurality of optically identifiable discrete markings
provided by groups of marker weft yams of the contrasting
colour, the groups of marker weft yams provided at
predetermined locations spaced apart in a warp direction by
weft yams of the majority colour, the marker weft yarns woven
into the fabric web so as to be visible from an upper side of the
fabric only in predetermined marker areas of the fabric web to
define the optically identifiable discrete markings which are
spaced apart along the warp and weft directions,
wherein each group of marker weft yams extends
through at least one respective marker area at a same position
along the fabric web and spaced apart across the fabric web.
63. A fabric web comprising:
a first plurality of yams having a majority colour, the first
plurality of yams including majority weft yams interwoven
with majority warp yams; and
a second plurality of yams having a minority colour that
contrasts with the majority colour of the first plurality of yams,
the second plurality of yams including marker weft yams that
are interwoven with the majority warp yams to define optically
identifiable markings that are spaced apart in at least one of the
warp and weft directions, wherein at least one of the optically
identifiable markings is defined by a plurality of the marker
weft yams.
2
Appeal2017-003222
Application 12/601,450
App. Br. 23, 28 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a key
recitation in dispute).
Independent claim 61 is similar to claim 41 in that it requires marker
weft yams that are visible from a first side only in marker areas to define
discrete markings. Each of the remaining claims on appeal depends from
claim 41, 61, or 63.
REJECTIONS
I. Claim 57 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
lacking adequate written description in the Specification. 3
II. Claims 41, 43-51, 55, 59-61, 63, and 64 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Busskamp. 4
III. Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Busskamp and Hill. 5
IV. Claims 52-54, 56-58, and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Busskamp and Manley. 6
OPINION
Rejection I
Claim 57 requires, by its dependence from claim 56, a double layer
region having upper and lower layers, and recites that the minority color
3 Additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 set forth in the Final Office
Action stand withdrawn. See Ans. 2-3.
4 US 6,932, 120 B2, issued August 23, 2005 ("Busskamp").
5 US 2006/0284403 Al, published December 21, 2006 ("Hill").
6 US 2007 /0040368 Al, published February 22, 2007 ("Manley").
3
Appeal2017-003222
Application 12/601,450
marker weft yams of claim 41 "are not woven into the lower layer in the
region between the optically identifiable discreet markings." The Examiner
finds that the above-quoted negative recitation in claim 57 lacks written
description in the Specification. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3.
Appellants point to paragraphs 20 and 26 of the Specification. 7 There,
the Specification explains that marker weft yams preferably are provided
where the fabric is formed as a single layer-i.e., outside of the double layer
regions that form individual air bag cells-but that "[i]t is possible to weave
the black [marker] yams into an upper layer in a double layer region," such
that the black yams hang within the air bag cell. Spec. 7:29--8:3. We are
persuaded that the foregoing disclosure adequately demonstrates Appellants'
possession of a fabric that includes marker weft yams that are woven into
the upper layer but not woven into the lower layer of a double-layer region.
Rejection I as applied to claim 57 is not sustained.
Rejection II
With regard to Rejection II, Appellants argue independent claims 41
and 61 together, separately argue claim 63, and do not separately argue any
other rejected claim. App. Br. 13-16. Accordingly, each dependent claim
stands or falls with the independent claim from which it depends.
7 Appellants' citations to the Specification by paragraph number presumably
are made relative to the corresponding published application, US
2010/0173137 Al, published July 8, 2010. Paragraph 20 of that document
corresponds to page 5, line 25, through page 6, line 9, of the Specification.
Paragraph 26 corresponds to page 7, line 29, through page 8, line 3, of the
Specification.
4
Appeal2017-003222
Application 12/601,450
Claims 41 and 61
Appellants argue that Busskamp' s fabric includes crossing warp and
weft marker threads that extend the entire width and length of the fabric, as
is depicted in Busskamp's Figure 2, which Appellants' reproduce at page 14
of the Appeal Brief and we reproduce below:
FlG.2 l•
•/ WARP - ...._
• ~·
... _, -,
• •
""t""-1
-~::a
I I
Busskamp 's Figure 2 is a diagrammatic representation of a fabric section
showing woven markers. Busskamp 2:52-53. Appellants contend that
Busskamp 's marker thread pattern shown in Figure 2 fails to depict the
marker pattern required by each of claims 41 and 61. App. Br. 14--16; Reply
Br. 6-7. Each of claims 41 and 61 requires marker weft yams that are
woven so as to define optically identifiable discrete markings which are
"spaced apart along the warp and weft directions." Claims 41, 61 (emphasis
added). In Busskamp's Figure 2, the weft marker threads are spaced from
each other along the warp direction but are depicted as visible continuously
along the weft direction.
However, Busskamp's Figure 1, reproduced below, shows an
alternative configuration in which printed markers are visible only at
discrete locations spaced along both the warp and weft directions.
5
Appeal2017-003222
Application 12/601,450
FIG. l
Figure 1 is a diagrammatic representation of a fabric section showing printed
markers. Busskamp 2:50-51. Busskamp teaches that marker threads may
be woven to provide markers in "any desired position," with "defined
wanted spacings to each other." Busskamp 2: 19-20, 35-38. These
disclosures in Busskamp support the Examiner's determination (Final Act.
7-8) that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to provide
marker threads that are woven so as to be visible only in discrete marker
areas spaced along the warp and weft directions, such as the configuration
depicted in Busskamp's Figure 1.
Accordingly, we sustain Rejection II as applied to each of claims 41
and 61.
Claim 63
With regard to claim 63, Appellants solely argue that each marking
along the weft direction in Busskamp' s Figure 2 is defined by only one of
the marker threads, whereas claim 63 requires that at least one marking is
defined by a plurality of marker weft yams. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 9.
However, Busskamp states that the depicted markers may be "single or
multiple threads." Busskamp 2:29-30. Thus, Appellants' argument is not
supported by the evidence and, for that reason, is not persuasive.
Accordingly, we also sustain Rejection II as applied to claim 63.
6
Appeal2017-003222
Application 12/601,450
Rejection III
With regard to Rejection III, Appellants argue that claim 42 is
patentable because it depends from independent claim 41. 8 App. Br. 16-18;
Reply Br. 10-12. Having found Appellants' arguments against Rejection II
as applied to claim 41 unpersuasive, we sustain Rejection III for the same
reasons.
Re} ection IV
With regard to Rejection IV, the Examiner finds that Busskamp fails
to disclose a weave pattern in which marker weft yams hang loosely on an
underside of the fabric in a region between discrete markings. Final Act. 11.
The Examiner finds that Manly teaches integrating tethers into a weave
pattern in a vehicle airbag fabric, such that the tethers loosely extend
between first and second layers in the bag region and withstand the force of
inflation in use. Id. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill to weave at least the marker yams in
Busskamp into both fabric layers surrounding a bag cell, so as to serve as
tethers during inflation. Id. at 12.
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
used Busskamp' s marker threads to form tethers because, according to
Appellants, marker threads are weaker and more expensive than non-marker
threads. App. Br. 20. Appellants present no credible evidence
demonstrating a relative strength or cost of Busskamp's marker threads. Nor
are we persuaded that either of those characteristics would negate their use
8 Appellants also argue against a rejection of claims 41, 61, and 63 over the
combined disclosures of Hill and Busskamp. App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 10-
12. We find no such rejection before us.
7
Appeal2017-003222
Application 12/601,450
in conjunction with non-marker threads to forming tethers. Notably, Manley
states that tethers in a one-piece air bag may be formed from the same warp
and fill yams that are used to construct the woven bag. Manley Abstract.
Appellants also argue that the word "loosely" in the claims should be
interpreted as necessarily meaning that the marker yams are not woven into
the lower layer. App. Br. 20. Appellants' proposed interpretation is
inconsistent with the language of the claims. Claim 56 requires that the
second plurality of yams (i.e., the marker yams) "hang loosely between the
upper and lower layers" in the region between identifiable markings. Claim
57, which depends from claim 56, specifies that those loosely hanging yams
"are not woven into the lower layer." Thus, the claim language in claim 57
is consistent with an interpretation of its parent claim 56 that the loosely
hanging threads may be woven into the lower layer.
However, as Appellants' persuasively point out, claim 57, as noted,
requires that the yams which are loosely hanging between the upper and
lower layers also are "not woven into the lower layer." App. Br. 21. The
Examiner does not present findings or articulate a reason as to why or how
one of ordinary skill would have formed tethers in Busskamp' s fabric
without weaving the tethers into the lower fabric layer.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain Rejection IV as applied to
claims 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, and 62. We do not sustain Rejection IV as applied
to claim 5 7.
8
Appeal2017-003222
Application 12/601,450
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 57 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 is
reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 41-56, and 58---64 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9