Ex Parte Siev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2018

13559810 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/559,810 07/27/2012 Chhay Siev
26294 7590 06/15/2018
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300EASTNINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
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.
TRW(AP)020130-0RD 7589
EXAMINER
KIM,SANGK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2018 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):
rkline@tarolli.com
docketing@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHHA Y SIEV, WADE J. SORENSEN,
EDGAR H. SCHLAPS, and BORIS SIEBECK
Appeal2017-010155
Application 13/559,810 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8-17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the "invention relates to a vehicle sensitive
sensor assembly for activating the occupant protection device." Spec. 1,
1 According to Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is TRW VEHICLE
SAFETY SYSTEM INC." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010155
Application 13/559,810
11. 9--11. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal. We reproduce
claim 1, below, as representative of the appealed claims.
1. A vehicle occupant protection device for helping to
protect an occupant of a seat of a vehicle, comprising:
an element; and
an inertia member that engages the element, the inertia
member being movable relative to the element from an
unactuated position to an actuated position in response to at least
one sensed vehicle condition for activating the occupant
protection device, wherein a vertical axis extends through the
center of mass of the inertia member when the inertia member is
in the unactuated position,
at least one of the element and the inertia member having
a plurality of planar surfaces extending at an angle relative to the
vertical axis, at least two planar surfaces of the plurality of planar
surfaces having coincident edges that extend at an angle relative
to the vertical axis, the inertia member and element being
movable relative to one another along at least one planar surface
of the plurality of planar surfaces to place the inertia member in
the actuated position to activate the occupant protection device.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as anticipated by Sorensen et al. (US 2009/0033084 Al, pub.
Feb. 5, 2009) (hereinafter "Sorensen"). 2
2 Although the Examiner rejects each of claims as anticipated by Sorensen
in the Final Office Action (see, e.g., Final Office Action 2), the Examiner
withdraws the anticipation rejection of claims 4, 18, and 19 (see, e.g.,
Answer 2).
2
Appeal2017-010155
Application 13/559,810
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "at
least one of the element and the inertia member having a plurality of planar
surfaces." Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants argues that claim 1 's
anticipation rejection is in error because "neither [Sorensen's] ramp
surface 212 nor ... first surface portion 224 is planar." Appeal Br. 6; see
also id. at 5-13. Based on our review, we determine that the Examiner does
not support adequately the finding that Sorensen's ramp surface 212 has a
plurality of planar surfaces, and, therefore, we do not sustain the rejection.
We agree with Appellants that "Sorensen describes ... ramp
surface 212 as being [generally] frustoconical (see Sorensen, par[a].
[0038])." Appeal Br. 5. Sorensen itself does not appear to define
"frustoconical," and neither the Examiner nor Appellants point to a
definition of "frustoconical" in Sorensen. A relevant dictionary definition of
"frustoconical" is "of the shape of a frustum of a cone." See
https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/frustoconical, last accessed
June 6, 2018. A relevant dictionary definition of "frustum" is "the basal part
of a solid cone ... formed by cutting off the top by a plane parallel to the
base." See https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/frustum, last
accessed June 6, 2018. It is not apparent to us, consistent with the above
dictionary definitions, that Sorensen's ramp surface 212 has a plurality of
planar surfaces.
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Sorensen's Figures 7-9 show
that Sorensen's ramp surface 212 has a plurality of planar surfaces
(Answer 3), and that this is consistent with Sorensen's paragraph 38,
because this portion of Sorensen "does not state ... ramp surface 212 ...
3
Appeal2017-010155
Application 13/559,810
[is] frustoconical," but rather states that ramp surface 212 is "generally
frustoconical" (id.). The Examiner finds that such a description accurately
describes Sorensen's ramp surface 212 that has "curved portions ... located
[at a top end] and ... non-curved straight sections ... located towards the
bottom." Id. Based on our review of Sorensen, however, we determine that
the Examiner does not support adequately the finding that Sorensen's figures
illustrate that ramp surface 212 has a plurality of planar surfaces. It is only
clear to us that (using the Examiner's nomenclature) the "bottom" of ramp
surface 212 presents a straight line in cross-section, not that the "bottom" of
ramp surface 212 includes any planar surfaces.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Sorensen. Consequently,
we also do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8-
1 7 that depend from claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-3, 5,
6, and 8-17.
REVERSED
4