Nascimento, Aidano et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 23, 2020

14807969 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/807,969 07/24/2015 Aidano Nascimento IPL0741USC 5885
23413 7590 01/23/2020
CANTOR COLBURN LLP
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
BLANKENSHIP, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2020 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AIDANO NASCIMENTO, DAVID W. WHITEHEAD, and
JEFFREY T. RODGERS

Appeal 2019-004454
Application 14/807,969
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Inteva
Products, LLC.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004454
Application 14/807,969

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter relates to vehicular armrests. See Spec.
¶¶ 2–4. Apparatus claims 1 and 10, and method claim 12, are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A deployable armrest system for a vehicle, comprising:
a pair of side walls configured to be located in a facing
spaced relationship with respect to each other to define an
operator area therebetween; and
a pair of deployable armrests movably secured to the pair
of side walls and configured for movement between a stowed
position and a deployed position, wherein each of the pair of
deployable armrests have a support member comprising a
support surface that is flush with a surface of the pair of side
walls when the pair of deployable armrests are in the stowed
position and wherein the support surface of the support member
of each of the pair of deployable armrests extends outwardly and
laterally away from the surface of the pair of side walls when the
pair of deployable armrests are in the deployed position, wherein
each support member is received within a cavity located in each
one of the pair of sidewalls when the pair of armrests are in the
stowed position and wherein the support surface of each one of
the pair of armrests is located behind an elastic material that
completely covers each support member and the cavity as well
as a significant portion of the respective one of the pair of side
walls, wherein the elastic material expands from a first
configuration when the pair of armrests are in the deployed
position and contracts back to the first configuration when the
pair of armrests are in the stowed position.

Appeal 2019-004454
Application 14/807,969

3
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Grimes US 5,921,610 July 13, 1999
Shabana et al.
(“Shabana”)
US 2004/0164577 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
REJECTION2
Claims 1–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Shabana and Grimes.
ANALYSIS
Appellant separately argues independent claims 1, 10, and 12. See
Appeal Br. 6–18. However, the arguments presented by Appellant for each
claim are redundant. Further, Appellant does not present a separate
argument for any dependent claim, stating only that each such claim is
“believed to be allowable for at least the same reasons as” their respective
parent claim. Appeal Br. 10, 14, 18. Accordingly, we select claim 1 for
review, with the remaining claims (i.e., claims 2–13) standing or falling with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1 recites “an elastic material . . . wherein the elastic material
expands from a first configuration . . . and contracts back to the first
configuration.” Appellant’s Specification provides guidance as to the scope
of the claim term “elastic material.” Paragraph 19 thereof provides the
following description of “material 38”:

2 The Examiner also provisionally rejected claims 1–13 based on
nonstatutory double patenting in view of Application No. 13/895,187. See
Final Act. 6. A Notice of Abandonment of Application No. 13/895,187 was
mailed July 20, 2017, thereby rendering this provisional rejection moot.
Appeal 2019-004454
Application 14/807,969

4
(e.g., fabric, elastic fabric, elastic material or any other suitable
material having elastic characteristics and/or resilient
characteristics such that the material is capable of expanding
and contracting or in other words, expanding from a first
configuration upon deployment of the armrests and/or
placement of the operator's arms thereon and returning to the
first configuration upon stowing of the armrests and/or
movement of the operator's arms therefrom).
The Examiner acknowledges that the primary reference to Shabana
does “not disclose an elastic material” as recited, and relies on “Grimes [for
teaching] an elastic material (14, 42, 44).” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4. In
particular, the Examiner references Figure 5 (replicated below) of Grimes as
disclosing the recited “elastic material.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4.

The above Figure 5 of Grimes depicts door panel 14, padded surface 42, side
surfaces 44, and convolutions 47.
Appeal 2019-004454
Application 14/807,969

5
Grimes describes “arm rest 20 [as] integrally formed as part of interior
panel 14.” Grimes 3:55–56. This “arm rest 20 includes top padded surface
42 and side surfaces 44 with spring acting convolutions 47.” Grimes 3:56–
58. Grimes states that “[t]he upper few convolutions 47 extend about the
arm rest such that . . . the padded upper surface 42 is free to vertically
move.” Grimes 3:58–61. Hence, the Examiner finds that Grimes’ door
panel “is inherently elastic because the convolutions (47) act as springs,”
which permit expansion and contraction. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3.
Appellant disagrees with this assessment stating, “the door panel of
Grimes is not an elastic material.” Appeal Br. 6. However, in individually
discussing each of items 14, 42, 44, and 47, Appellant simply addresses the
item and concludes that it “cannot meet the limitations . . . when combined
with the teachings of Shabana.” Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant is silent as to
how or why Grimes’ convolutions 47 in side surface 44, which allow padded
surface 42 to rise and fall, is not encompassed by Appellant’s description of
elastic material above.3
Additionally, Appellant’s arguments amount to little more than simply
reciting the claim language and concluding that the limitations of claim 1 are
not met. See Appeal Br. 6–7. As noted by our reviewing court, “it has long
been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error
in the examiner’s rejections.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2011). Further, it has held “that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37

3 To reiterate, Paragraph 19 of Appellant’s Specification states that such
“material is capable of expanding and contracting or in other words,
expanding from a first configuration . . . and returning to the first
configuration.”
Appeal 2019-004454
Application 14/807,969

6
to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011). That is nearly the situation here, i.e., a recitation of the
claim limitation and a naked assertion that the limitation is not found in the
prior art.
Also, and perhaps of greatest importance, Appellant focuses attention
on the alleged requirement that the elastic material expands “outwardly and
laterally away” from a first configuration. Appeal Br. 8, 9; see also id. at 6,
7 (not emphasized therein). However, such language is not recited in claim
1 (or 10 or 12). See Appeal Br. 20–24 (Claims Appendix). Instead, claim 1
(and 10 and 12) recites “wherein the elastic material expands from a first
configuration,” and is (are) silent as to any direction of such expansion (i.e.,
outwardly and laterally). In fact, when Appellant sought to make such
directional amendment to these claims (see Amendment mailed September
15, 2016), the following Advisory Action dated October 4, 2016 pertaining
to that Amendment stated that the proposed changes “will not be entered.”
Hence, Appellant is basing the above arguments on claim language that is
not before us for review.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13 as
being obvious over Shabana and Grimes.
Appeal 2019-004454
Application 14/807,969

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References Affirmed Reversed
1–13 103(a) Shabana, Grimes 1–13
Overall
Outcome
1–13
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED