Ex Parte Ortiz Hernandez et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2019

14934490 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/934,490 11/06/2015
121691 7590 06/26/2019
Ford Global Technologies, LLC/
King & Schickli, PLLC
800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200
Lexington, KY 40503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edgardo Fabricio Ortiz Hernandez
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.
83584180 8160
EXAMINER
ISLAM, SYED A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2019 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):
uspto@iplawl.net
laura@iplawl.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte EDGARDO FABRICIO ORTIZ HERNANDEZ,
FRANCISCO JAVIER FERREIRA YANEZ, and
JOSE ALFREDO PEREGRINA LOERA
Appeal2019-000176
Application 14/934,490 1
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE-
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in
the Final Office Action (dated Jan. 12, 2018, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 Ford Global Technologies, LLC is the applicant and is identified as the real party
in interest in Appellant's Appeal Brief (filed June 12, 2018, hereinafter "Appeal
Br."). Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2019-000176
Application 14/934,490
INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to "a shield for attachment to a seat base of
a vehicle." Spec. para. 1.
Claims 1, 14, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a seat including a seat base having a lateral side with a
mounting bracket projecting transversely therefrom;
a shield adapted for shielding the lateral side of the seat
base, the shield including a recess having at least one
strengthening rib forming at least a portion of a receiver for
receiving at least a portion of the mounting bracket.
REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1-8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § I02(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Katsuhiko et al. (JP 2013-
203218 A, pub. Oct. 7, 2013, hereinafter "Katsuhiko"). 2' 3
II. The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Katsuhiko and Yamazaki et al. (US
2010/0090515 Al, pub. Apr. 15, 2010, hereinafter "Yamazaki").
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the anticipation rejection of claim 9. See Examiner
Answer (dated Aug. 9, 2018, hereinafter "Ans.") 3; Final Act. 3--4.
3 We derive our understanding of this reference from the English language
translation contained in the image file wrapper of this application. All references
to the text of this document are to portions of the translation.
2
Appeal2019-000176
Application 14/934,490
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Each of independent claims 1, 14, and 17 requires, inter alia, "a shield
adapted for shielding" a "side of the seat base." Appeal Br. 9-10 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Katsuhiko discloses "seat base 20 having a lateral
side with a mounting bracket projecting transversely therefrom." Final Act. 3; see
also Katsuhiko, Figs. IA, 2, 4. The Examiner further finds that Katsuhiko's shield
cover 10 is "adapted for shielding the side of the seat base [20]." Final Act. 4.
According to the Examiner, because "[t]he bottom of ... [Katsuhiko's] leg bracket
[20] is attached to a rail of the floor and the top surface is attached to the bottom of
the seat," "the leg cover [10] can only be attached to cover the side or lateral
portion of the bracket." Ans. 3 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that Katsuhiko' s leg cover 10 does not "serve to shield the
lateral side of the seat base." Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
Katsuhiko discloses a vehicle seat assembly including an upper rail provided
with a seat slide device carrying a seat cushion and a lower rail having front and
back ends fixed to a vehicle floor using leg brackets 20. Katsuhiko, paras. 1, 2,
Fig. 4. Katsuhiko further discloses that by attaching the upper slide to the lower
slide, the seat slide device carrying the seat cushion slides in a forward/rearward
direction. Id., para. 2.
As such, in light of Katsuhiko' s disclosure, we do not agree with the
Examiner that the top surface of Katsuhiko' s leg brackets 20 is attached to the
bottom of the seat. See Ans. 4 ("[T]he top surface [of the leg bracket] is attached
to the bottom of the seat"). As Katsuhiko' s seat slide device carrying the seat
cushion is supported on the upper rail, which in tum is supported on the lower rail,
we do not see how the top surface of leg brackets 20 could be attached to the
bottom of the seat, as the Examiner asserts. In other words, we do not see how the
3
Appeal2019-000176
Application 14/934,490
top surface of leg brackets 20 could be attached to the bottom of a vehicle seat,
which slides in a forward/rearward direction, as the Examiner finds, while at the
same time leg brackets 20 are fixed to the vehicle floor, as Katsuhiko discloses.
We did not find any portion of Katsuhiko, and the Examiner has not pointed to any
portion, that discloses an arrangement where the top surface of leg brackets 20 is
attached to the bottom of the seat cushion.
Accordingly, we understand that the bottom surface of Katsuhiko's leg
brackets 20 is fixed to the vehicle floor and the top surface of leg brackets 20 is
covered by shield/leg cover 10. Such an interpretation is consistent with
Katsuhiko, which discloses that "the leg cover [10] ... [is] covered ... from the
top . .. [of] the leg brackets [20] on a car floor, and deterioration of appearance
quality is prevented by hiding leg brackets [20]." Katsuhiko, para. 3 (emphasis
added). Hence, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's finding that "the leg
cover [10] can only be attached to cover the side or lateral portion of the bracket,"
is based on speculation, which cannot sustain a proper rejection. Reply Brief 2
(citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967)) (emphasis added). As
such, Katsuhiko does not disclose that its shield cover 10 is "adapted for shielding"
a "side of the seat base 20," as required by each of independent claims 1, 14, and
17.
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)/(a)(2) of independent claims 1, 14, and 17, and their
respective dependent claims 2-8, 10-12, 15, and 18-20, as anticipated by
Katsuhiko.
Rejection II
The Examiner's use of the Yamazaki disclosure does not remedy the
deficiency of Katsuhiko discussed supra. See Final Act. 5. Therefore, for the
4
Appeal2019-000176
Application 14/934,490
same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of claims 13 and 16 as unpatentable over Katsuhiko and Yamazaki.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)/(a)(2) as anticipated by Katsuhiko is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 13 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Katsuhiko and Yamazaki is reversed.
REVERSED
5