Ex Parte Coote et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 201612900109 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/900,109 10/07/2010 121361 7590 08/01/2016 BAE-UK I Finch & Maloney Gateway One 50 Commercial, Suite 300 Manchester, NH 03101 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David John COOTE 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. BAE.XA3391US 7134 EXAMINER WOLDEMARYAM, ASSRES H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2016 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): docketing@finchmaloney.com nmaloney@finchmaloney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID JOHN COOTE and OLIVER TREVOR HORTON Appeal 2014-001360 Application 12/900,109 Technology Center 3600 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE David John Coote and Oliver Trevor Horton ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 8-15, which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br., Cover Page; id. at 2-5. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). An oral hearing was held on June 16, 2016. We REVERSE. According to Appellants, the real party in interest is BAE Systems PLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2014-001360 Application 12/900, 109 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' disclosed invention generally "relates to a vehicle armrest for an occupant of the vehicle," and more specifically "relates to a combined handgrip and armrest for a flight-crew member of an aircraft." Spec. p. 1, 11. 2--4. Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A vehicle armrest for a forearm of an occupant of the vehicle, comprising: a first surface facing generally upwardly towards an intended location of an occupant's forearm and positioned to support said forearm; a second swface facing in an opposite direction to the first surface generally downwardly away from the intended location of the occupant's forearm, the second surface having a plurality of grooves extending from a distal end of the armrest towards a proximal end; and a handgrip configured to be grasped for support by an occupant of the vehicle, each groove of the second surface having a control for operation by the occupant to control the vehicle whilst grasping the hand grip for support. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Szczerba Dellenger US 7,302,322 Bl US 7,379,052 Bl 2 Nov. 27, 2007 May 27, 2008 Appeal 2014-001360 Application 12/900, 109 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: I. Claims 1--4, 8, 9, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Szczerba. Final Act. 2--4. II. Claims 5, 10, 11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Szczerba and Dellenger. Id. at 4--5. ANALYSIS All the claims require a vehicle armrest including "a first surface facing generally upwardly towards an intended location of an occupant's forearm," and "a second swface facing in an opposite direction to the first surface generally downwardly away from the intended location of the occupant's forearm," with "the second surface having a plurality of grooves extending from a distal end of the armrest towards a proximal end." See Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner relies on Szczerba for disclosing the recited second surface and the plurality of grooves therein. See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 3-5 (including annotated Fig. 1 of Szczerba). In particular, the Examiner states that Szczerba's second surface, as shown in annotated Figure 1, "ha[s] grooves ... containing the rotary dials," such that "the rotary dials are disposed in the grooves ... on the second surface." Ans. 3--4; see id. at 5 (including annotated Fig. 1 of Szczerba). Appellants persuasively assert, however, that Szczerba "does not disclose or suggest the use of grooves," because "there is nothing in the cited document that would have guided one of skill in the art to realize that the 3 Appeal 2014-001360 Application 12/900, 109 rotary dials are disposed in a groove." Reply Br. 3. From Appellants' Specification-in light of which the claims must be interpreted-we agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that "a groove is a feature that can be described as a long narrow channel or depression."2 Id. (underlining omitted); see, e.g., Spec., p. 4, 11. 3-14; Figs. 2c, 3. Although we appreciate the Examiner's logical deduction that Szczerba's rotary dials are at least partially disposed in some form of a cavity or recess, the Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Szczerba to indicate that they are disposed in a groove, let alone a groove that would extend "from a distal end of the armrest towards a proximal end," as recited in the claims. Moreover, Appellants are also correct that such a cavity or recess of Szczerba, even if it were a groove, is not disposed in a second surface that is "facing in an opposite direction to the first surface," as recited in the claims. See Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner appears to focus on the modifier "generally" to state that "[ t ]he language of the claim does not strictly limit the second surface facing opposite direction to the first surface." Ans. 4. But this statement misconstrues the plain language of the claims. Although the modifier "generally" may give some wiggle room to the term "downwardly" for the facing direction of the second surface (as the first surface correspondingly faces "generally upwardly"), the claim does in fact 2 We note that Appellants' proffered definition of "groove" accords with an ordinary meaning of the claim term as "a long narrow channel or depression," which is consistent with the claim language and Appellants' Specification. See Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (I Ith ed. 2003). 4 Appeal 2014-001360 Application 12/900, 109 require that the second surface face "in an opposite direction to the first surface."3 See Appeal Br., Claims App. In short, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Szczerba discloses, either expressly or inherently, "a second surface facing in an opposite direction to the first surface generally downwardly away from the intended location of the occupant's forearm," with "the second surface having a plurality of grooves extending from a distal end of the armrest towards a proximal end." See Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, based on the record before us-because an anticipation rejection requires a finding of each and every limitation as set forth in the claims in a single reference-we cannot sustain Rejection I. Regarding Rejection II, we note that this rejection is premised on the same purported disclosure from Szczerba, and that Dellenger is relied on for teaching additional features, but not to cure the deficiency of Szczerba identified supra. See Final Act. 4--5. Thus, we also cannot sustain Rejection II. 3 In other words, any leeway imparted by the modifier "generally" applies to the facing direction ("upwardly" or "downwardly," for the first and second surfaces, respectively), but does not apply to the orientation recitation of "opposite," such that this modifier does not affect the plain recitation that the second surface faces "in an opposite direction" relative to the first surface. The Examiner's statement that "the features upon which [Appellants] rel[y] (i.e., the second surface facing opposite direction to the first surface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s)," is simply incorrect. Ans. 4. 5 Appeal 2014-001360 Application 12/900, 109 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5 and 8-15. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation