Ex Parte Barrow et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201613158817 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation