Ex Parte Barrow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

13158817 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/158,817 06/13/2011
16625 7590 03/30/2016
Honda Patents & Technologies North America LLC
21001 State Route 739
Raymond, OH 43067
Andrew E. Barrow
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.
Hl 102000USO 1 1221
EXAMINER
BLANKENSHIP, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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):
hpt_uspto@ahm.honda.com
cliff_ vaterlaus@hpt.honda.com
william_fisher@hpt.honda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW E. BARROW, JASON DILLEY,
JUSTIN T. LONGWELL, and PAUL T. AEBKER
Appeal2014-001004
Application 13/158,817 1
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-13, 15-18, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, "[ t ]he present exemplary embodiment
relates generally to automotive vehicle seats, seating assemblies and cargo
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-001004
Application 13/158,817
storage. It finds particular application in a vehicle that is adaptable for use
in cargo transport as well as function as a passenger vehicle." Spec. i-f 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 22 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the appealed claims and recites:
1. An automotive vehicle including an adjustable seating
configuration the vehicle comprising an occupant
compartment having a driver side and a passenger side, the
passenger side being closed by a pair of side doors, a front
door having a hinged connection toward a forward end of
the vehicle and a rear door having a hinged connection
toward a rearward end of the vehicle, front and rear
passenger seats residing in said compartment wherein a
seat back of said rear passenger seat is foldable in a
forward direction and a seat back of said front passenger
seat is foldable in a forward direction and a base of the
front passenger seat is further rotatable in a forward
direction.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huggins2 in view of
Nonaka. 3
2. The Examiner rejects claim 4 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huggins in view of Nonaka and Partch. 4
2 Huggins et al., US 2,997,336, iss. Aug. 22, 1961.
3 Nonaka et al., US 6,698,813 B2, iss. Mar. 2, 2004.
4 Partch, US 2008/0093874 Al, pub. Apr. 24, 2008.
2
Appeal2014-001004
Application 13/158,817
3. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 12 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huggins in view of Nonaka and Lechkun. 5
4. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, and 17 under U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Huggins in view of Nonaka and Kuno. 6
5. The Examiner rejects claim 18 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nonaka in view ofKuno and Bixby. 7
DISCUSSION
Appellants raise arguments only with respect to claim 1 and claims 5,
13, and 22. See App. Br. 7-11. We address each of these groups of claims
separately below. Appellants do not raise any arguments regarding the
rejection of independent claim 18, and thus, we summarily sustain the
rejection of that claim.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Huggins discloses a vehicle with an occupant
compartment having a driver side and a passenger side; a front door hinged
toward the front of the vehicle; a rear door hinged toward the rear of the
vehicle; and front and rear passenger seats with seat backs that are foldable
in a forward direction, as required by claim 1. Final Action 3 (citing
Huggins Figs. 1, 2, 4). The Examiner acknowledges that Huggins does not
disclose that the front passenger seat base is rotatable in a forward direction
as claimed. See id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Nonaka discloses a front
passenger seat with a seat back that folds forward and a seat base that then
rotates forward. Id. (citing Nonaka Fig. 13). The Examiner concludes that it
5 Lechkun et al., US 7,488,029 B2, iss. Feb. 10. 2009.
6 Kuno et al., US 2009/0302632 Al, pub. Dec. 10, 2009.
7 Bixby, US 2004/0245797 Al, pub. Dec. 9, 2004.
3
Appeal2014-001004
Application 13/158,817
would have been obvious to include a front seat as taught by Nonaka in
Huggins' vehicle "to improve the load handling capability of the vehicle."
Id. at 4--5.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions
regarding the scope and content of the prior art with respect to claim 1. See
Final Action 3-5, 10; Ans. 2. As discussed below, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments.
Appellants argue that the proposed combination of Huggins and
Nonaka is improper because Huggins and Nonaka are "directed to divergent
methodology" and the combination would destroy the intended purpose of,
or the express goal of, Huggins. App. Br. 7-8. In support, Appellants assert
that Nonaka's seat is intended to create storage space on the floor of the
vehicle; Huggins is directed solely at creating a flat surface for storage on
the seat backs; and adding a fold and tumble seat is contrary to Huggins'
intention. Id. We disagree. We agree with the Examiner that the proposed
modification neither is contrary to nor destroys the intended purpose of
Huggins. As noted by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that the proposed modification would still allow for the front
passenger seat back to fold forward and create a flat coplanar surface with
the other seat backs. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would also
recognize the additional benefit of allowing the front seat to rotate forward
to create more flexibility for storage within the occupant compartment.
Thus, we determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie showing
of obviousness with respect to claim 1 without error, and we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Claims 2--4 and 6-12 have not been separately argued
and fall with claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-001004
Application 13/158,817
Claims 5, 13, and 22
Appellants separately argue that the rejection of claims 5, 13, and 22
is improper because the Examiner has misconstrued the claim terms "deck"
and "deck surface" to include the seat back of Huggins. App. Br. 9.
Appellants contend that these terms have a specific meaning in the art,
Specification, Figures, and the claims. Id. Specifically, Appellants assert
deck cannot be construed broadly to include the folded back of a third row
seat or the vehicle floor supporting the passenger seats, "but rather the raised
... lid/surface of the cargo area relative to a primary vehicle floor and
coplanar to the exposed surface of the rear passenger seat back in a folded
condition." Id.
We are not persuaded of error, and we agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding these claims. See Final
Action 3--4, 1 O; Ans. 2-3. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that
under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the folded seat
back of Huggins' third row seat forms a deck. We find that identifying the
folded third row seat back as a deck is consistent with the claims, the
identified portions of the Specification, and the dictionary definition
provided by Appellants. See App. Br. 9. One of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that the third row seat backs identified by the Examiner
form the top of a storage compartment, for storing the third row seat, at the
rear of the vehicle as required by Appellants' proposed definition.
We also find that Huggins' element 42 is a deck as claimed, even
under Appellants' interpretation of the claim. Specifically, Huggins
discloses that 42 is a fixed floor section that defines that height at which the
"seat sections are aligned to provide the coplanar floor surface for load
5
Appeal2014-001004
Application 13/158,817
supporting purposes." Huggins col. 4, 11. 5-11; see also id. at Fig. 5. As
required by Appellants proposed construction, this section is neither "the
folded back of a third row seat" nor "the vehicle floor supporting the
passenger seats" and is a raised surface of the cargo area relative to the
primary floor supporting the seats.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner established a prima
facie showing of obviousness with respect to claims 5, 13, and 22 without
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of those claims. Claims 15-17
have not been separately argued and fall with claim 13.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-
13, 15-18, and 22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6