Ex parte TOWNSEND

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 23, 1998

08257080 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 23, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 9, 1994. According to1
the appellant, this application is a division of Application
07/912,790, filed July 13, 1992.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN A. TOWNSEND

_____________
Appeal No. 96-1256
Application 08/257,0801
______________
HEARD: October 13, 1998
_______________
Before CALVERT, FRANKFORT and STAAB, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-1256
Application 08/257,080
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claim 42.
Of the other claims in the application, claim 44 has been
allowed, and claims 1 to 8, 19 to 27 and 36 to 41 stand
withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR § 1.142(b) as being
drawn to nonelected inventions.
Claim 42 defines the subject matter in issue as follows:
42. In a motor vehicle having a lateral door movable
between a closed position and an open position and a passenger
seat located to the interior of and adjacent the door, said
seat having an upwardly disposed backrest portion and a lower
seat portion disposed at a level below the backrest portion,
the improvement comprising:
a) an armrest carried by the seat in a disposition
located between the seat and the door for movement
between a withdrawn position permitting
substantially unobstructed ingress and egress to the
seat through the door when open and a working
position disposed above the level of the lower seat
portion and between the seat and door when the door
is in the closed position; and,
b) an airbag located inside the armrest for
deployment in the event of a collision laterally of
the armrest to an area located between the door and
a passenger supported by the seat.
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Neale et al. (Neale) 3,322,463 May 30,
1967
Freedman 3,807,799 Apr. 30,
1974
Appeal No. 96-1256
Application 08/257,080
In the supplemental answer, the examiner also referred2
to Simsic patent 5,224,733, but that patent has been given no
consideration since it was not positively included in the
rejection. Ex parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1305 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1993).
3
Stier 3,967,851 July 06,
1976
Fujiwara 4,668,010 May 26,
1987
Nomura et al. (Nomura) 5,106,160 Apr. 21,
1992
Sinnhuber 5,277,441 Jan.
11, 1994
(filed Feb. 24, 1992)
Claim 42 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nomura, Freedman, Stier or Fujiwara in view
of Neale and Sinnhuber. 2
On pages 2 and 3 of the final rejection (Paper No. 5),
the examiner states the basis of the rejection thus:
It would have been obvious to provide
any one of the above listed primary
references, with a movable armrest carried
by the seat in a disposition located
outboard of the seat, in an automotive
environment with a door located adjacent
thereto as taught by Neale et al in order
to provide ease of access and an airbag in
an armrest deployable into an intermediate
area between seat and door on lateral
impact as taught by Sinnhuber in order to
protect against side impacts. See col. 4,
line 29 for the teaching of Sinnhuber
Appeal No. 96-1256
Application 08/257,080
4
regarding airbag placement in a seat
mounted armrest.
The examiner also, on pages 3 and 4 of the answer, refers to
claim 2 of Sinnhuber as further disclosure of an airbag in a
seat armrest.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented by appellant and the examiner, we conclude
that claim 42 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious,
from the applied references, to locate an airbag in an
armrest. With regard to Sinnhuber, appellant states on page 5
of the brief:
The Sinnhuber patent discloses side
airbags and at column 4, line 29, states:
"the airbag may be accommodated in an
armrest of the seat in the unactivated
state." Sinnhuber neither illustrates the
armrest nor in any way suggests that it may
be moveable between a withdrawn and a
working position, as called for by the
claim at issue. For that matter, it is not
even clear from Sinnhuber that the armrest
is carried by the seat. The words "of the
seat" in Sinnhuber could equally well mean
that the armrest of the seat is located in
the door adjacent the seat, as is
conventional in the motor vehicle art.
Sinnhuber actually seems to be suggesting
this, since column 4, lines 24-29 only
references the door mounted airbag 15. If
Appeal No. 96-1256
Application 08/257,080
5
he had intended the airbag accommodating
armrest to be carried by the seat, he would
have referenced the seat supported airbag
17.
Appellant further discusses the advantages of having an airbag
in an armrest mounted on the seat, rather than on the door, in
that the armrest moves with (maintains the same position
relative to) the occupant of the seat, and there is less
chance of its being displaced by a side impact.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. While
Sinnhuber does not expressly disclose that the armrest in
which the airbag is "accommodated" is carried by the seat, as
claimed, the test of obviousness is not whether the claimed
invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references, but rather what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). In the present case, we agree with the examiner
that since Sinnhuber discloses placing an airbag "in an
armrest of the seat," this would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art placing an airbag in any vehicle
armrest, whether it be located on the door or, as in the
Appeal No. 96-1256
Application 08/257,080
6
primary references, on the seat itself. While it may be
somewhat more advantageous to enclose the airbag in a seat-
mounted armrest, as appellant contends, we consider that any
such advantages would have been obvious to one skilled in the
art. Contrary to appellant’s argument, we do not believe that
the examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious was the result of "twenty-twenty
hindsight based upon applicant’s own teachings" (brief, page
6), but rather was the result of applying Sinnhuber’s clear
teaching of locating an airbag in an armrest to a particular
type of armrest, i.e., to the seat-mounted movable armrests
known in the prior art, as exemplified by the primary
references.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 42.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claim 42 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Appeal No. 96-1256
Application 08/257,080
7
)
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge )

sd
Michael B. Stewart
RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
1533 N. Woodward Avenue
Suite 140
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304