Ex Parte 6955397 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2012

90011745 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
90/011,745 06/15/2011 6955397 LEAR05601RX 5404
34007 7590 12/27/2012
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte Lear Corporation,
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DANIEL S. SONG, and
JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

2

Lear Corporation, the owner of the patent under reexamination
(hereinafter the “‘397 Patent”), appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306
from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20-43, 45-64, and 661
(Appeal Brief filed April 16, 2012, hereinafter “App. Br.,” at 20; Final
Office Action mailed December 16, 2011). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The ‘397 Patent issued to Mladen Humer on October 18, 2005 from
Application 10/950,711 filed on September 24, 2004. The reexamination
proceeding arose from a third-party request for ex parte reexamination filed
by TS Tech North America, Inc. (Request for Ex Parte Reexamination filed
June 15, 2011, hereinafter “Request”). We also understand that the ‘397
Patent is the subject of a patent infringement action, captioned Lear
Corporation v. TS Tech USA Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-00245,
in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
We heard Patent Owner’s oral arguments on October 3, 2012, a
written transcript of which was entered into the record on December 7, 2012.

1 The Examiner withdrew the Rejection of claims 3, 14, 67, and 69, but
indicated that claims 68 and 70 were still rejected. (Examiner’s Answer
mailed May 4, 2012, hereinafter “Ans.,” at 2; Final Rejection at 2-5.)
However, because claims 68 and 70 depend from claims 67 and 69, we will
also treat the rejection of claims 68 and 70 as withdrawn. (See Reply Brief
filed June 11, 2012, hereinafter “Rep. Br.” at 1.)
Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

3
The ‘397 Patent states that the invention relates to a vehicle seat
assembly having an active head restraint system. (Col. 1, ll. 7-9.) Figure 3
of the ‘397 Patent is reproduced below:

Figure 3 is a rear perspective view of the seat assembly according to
the invention of the ‘397 Patent, the seat assembly including a seatback
frame 38 (not shown), an upper armature 50 including a head restraint 34
(not shown), a lower armature 52, a first linkage 92, a second linkage 100, a
drag link 108, and a biasing member 106. (Col. 2, ll. 64-65, col. 4, ll. 6-22,
col. 6, l. 26 – col. 7, l. 26.)
Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

4

Claim 1 on appeal reads as follows (with underlining showing
additions and bracketing showing deletions relative to the original patent
claims):
1. A vehicle seat assembly comprising:
a seatback frame;
an upper armature including a head restraint;
a lower armature;
at least one first linkage moveably connected to said
seatback frame, operatively connected to said upper armature,
and operatively connected to said lower armature;
at least one second linkage moveably connected to said
seatback frame and operatively connected to said lower
armature; [[and]]
at least one drag link operatively interconnecting said
first linkage and said second linkage; and
at least one biasing member interconnecting said
seatback frame and one of said first linkage and said second
linkage, said biasing member operable to bias said head
restraint toward an upright position;
wherein said lower armature is operable to concurrently
move each of said first linkage and said second linkage relative
to said seatback frame in response to a predetermined force
applied to said lower armature to thereby move said upper
armature and move said head restraint toward the occupant.

(Claims App’x, App. Br.)

Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

5
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20-43, 45-64,
and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over JP H10-138814 A,
published May 26, 1998 (hereinafter “JP ‘814”)2 in view of Farquhar (U.S.
Patent No. 6,837,541 B2, issued January 4, 2005).

ISSUE
The Examiner, incorporating the Request pages 140-150, found that
JP ‘814 teaches the limitations of the claims, with the exception of the
limitation that the “biasing member [is] operable to bias said head restraint
toward an upright position.”3 (Final Rejection 2-3, Ans. 2-4.) The
Examiner, also relying on the Request, particularly the claim charts on pages
144-145, found that Farquhar discloses an active head restraint system that
causes the headrest to move upwardly and forwardly toward the head. The
Examiner concluded, via incorporation of the Request, that:
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
modify the active head restraint of JP ‘814 so that the headrest
frame 40 tilted forward in a rear-end collision form an “upright”
rest position toward which it was biased by the biasing member.
As disclosed in Farquhar. This would advantageously close the
gap between the headrest 12 and the passenger’s head more
quickly.

(Ans. 4; Request, p. 145, claim chart.)

2 Citations to English Translation of record.
3 This limitation was not originally present in claim 1, but was added in the
amendment dated November 28, 2011, which also cancelled claim 10.
(Final Office Action 2.)
Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

6
Appellant contends that the Examiner does not provide a sufficient
articulated basis as to how JP ‘814 would have been modified by Farquhar to
result in the limitations of the claims. (App. Br. 25.) Appellant also argues
that JP ‘814 teaches away from any combination with Farquhar because JP
‘814 limits the movement of the headrest frame to non-pivoting movement.
(App. Br. 26.)

Thus, the principal issue in this appeal is:
Did the Examiner provide a sufficient basis from which to conclude
that modifying JP ‘814 to incorporate the upright movement disclosed in
Farquhar would have rendered the claims on appeal, including the structural
features recited therein, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. Figure 3 of JP ‘814 is reproduced below:

Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

7
Figure 3 is a partially sectioned side view showing a part of the
headrest system according to the invention and Figure 4 is a
partially sectioned side view showing a working state of the
headrest system according to the invention. The headrest
system includes seatback frame 20, guide parts 30 and 31,
headrest frame 40, headrest stay 56, support member 45, driver
60, rod 61, back member 62, upper link 72, drive-side link 71,
intermediate link 73, and urging member 76. (JP ‘814, P. 4-5,
paras. [0006]-[0016], P. 6.)
2. JP ‘814 discloses that in operation, when an automobile is
struck from behind, the back member 62 is pushed by the
passenger’s body from the position shown in Figure 3 to that in
Figure 4, causing the drive sided link 71 to rotate
counterclockwise and the intermediate link 73 is pulled, causing
the upper link 72 to rotate counterclockwise around the second
shaft 80 advancing the support member 45 and moving headrest
frame 40 along guide parts 30 and 31, and moving headrest 12
toward the passenger’s head. (JP ‘814, p. 4, 5, paras. [0008],
[0017].)
Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

8
3. Figure 2 of Farquhar is reproduced below:

Figure 2 is a front view of the seat back frame including one
embodiment of the lumbar support system of the invention,
including seatback frame 34, upper armature 38, lower armature
40, linkage 42 that connects the upper and lower armatures,
articulating brackets 74 interconnecting upper armature 38 and
side members 44 of seatback frame 34, the articulating brackets
74 including a first end 76 that is pivotally attached to a
respective side member 44 for providing upwardly pivotal
movement of the upper armature 38 relative to the seatback
frame 34 and a second end 78 that provides forward pivotal
movement of the upper armature 38 relative to seatback frame
34. (Col. 3, ll. 19-21, col. 4, ll. 21-27.)
Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

9
4. Farquhar discloses that dynamic head restraint systems which
include headrests that move upwardly and forwardly toward the
head of the occupant were an improvement over static headrests
because they reduced the amount of separation between the
occupant and the seatback in the event of a rearward collision.
(Col. 1, ll. 57-65.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007),
quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
Upon our review of the record, we agree with Appellant, that there is
an insufficient basis from which to conclude that a vehicle seat assembly
having the structural limitations recited in the claims would have been
obvious over the combination of JP ‘814 and Farquhar.
The Examiner acknowledges that JP ‘814 only discloses biasing the
head restraint rearwardly, and does not disclose biasing the head restraint
upwardly, and thus, does not disclose biasing the headrest in an upright
position. (Final Rejection, p. 8.) Indeed, in JP ‘814, headrest frame 40
moves toward the passenger’s head in one direction, the forward direction,
Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

10
in the operational state by limited movement of headrest frame 40 along slits
30 and 31, which indicates that the head restraint is biased rearward via
urging member 76. (FF 1-2, compare Figs. 3 and 4.)
We do agree with the Examiner that Farquhar provides a teaching
indicating the desirability of headrests that move upwardly and forwardly
toward the head of an occupant in the event of a rearward collision, and
therefore a reason to bias a head restraint toward an upright position. (Ans.
4; FF 4) However, the claims are not directed to the general concept of
moving headrests upwardly and forwardly, but rather, are directed to a
specific structural configuration. The Examiner’s reasoning does not
adequately explain how the combined teachings of the prior art would result
in the specific structural configuration of the vehicle seat assembly recited in
the claims of the ‘397 Patent. In this regard, the Examiner’s position that “it
is only reasonable that to conclude that those in the art would have
understood from this description [(page 144 of the Request)] how to
implement [Farquhar’s] structures in JP ‘814” (Ans. 3.), does not provide
adequate rational underpinnings to support a conclusion of obviousness.
Farquhar's disclosed structure includes upper armature 38 and lower
armature 40, which are connected through a linkage 42. (FF 3.) Farquhar
discloses articulating brackets 74 having a first end 76 and a second end 78
providing the upwardly and forwardly pivotal movement, respectively. (FF
3.) We have not been provided with a sufficient explanation as to how one
of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented Farquhar’s disclosure of
upwardly and forwardly pivotal movement of the headrest (such that the
headrest is biased in an upright position in the non-operational state) into the
Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

11
system of JP ‘814 to result in the structural limitations of the claims on
appeal. As discussed above, in the system of JP ‘814, upwardly movement
of the headrest is prohibited.
We emphasize that our analysis does not depend on the bodily
incorporation of Farquhar’s articulating brackets into the headrest system of
JP ‘814. Rather, our position is that given the disclosures of JP ‘814 and
Farquhar, it is unclear how the specific interconnection of the various
components recited in the claims would be met by the combined teachings
of the prior art.
In discussing the dependent claims, the Examiner states that “there are
a number of linkage configurations suitable to achieve the desired purpose of
translating motion to the headrest” such that the selection of the
configuration “would have amounted to an obvious choice in design of
predictable solutions” and therefore the linkage configurations in the claims
would have been “obvious to try” due to a finite number of identified
predictable solutions. (Ans. 5-6.) To the extent the Examiner’s rationale
may be applicable to the independent claims we disagree that, at least based
on this record, there are such a finite number of identified predictable
solutions for the linkage configurations of the headrest system. As discussed
above, the identified linkage configurations in JP ‘814 and Farquhar do not
provide the structure recited in the claims. The Examiner’ s position that
there is a finite number of predictable linkage configurations is belied by the
Examiner’s earlier statement that there are “a number of” configurations that
may be used. The number and identity of these configurations are not set
forth by the Examiner. Thus, the Examiner’s rationale is insufficiently
Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

12
supported by the record, and does not remedy the deficiencies discussed
supra.

CONCLUSION
On this record, Examiner did not provide a sufficient basis from
which to conclude that modifying JP ‘814 to incorporate the upright
movement disclosed in Farquhar would have rendered the claims on appeal,
including the structural features recited therein, obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20-
43, 45-64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

cu

Appeal 2012-009763
Reexamination Control 90/011,745
Patent 6,955,397 B1

13

FOR PATENT OWNER:
Brooks Kushman P.C./Lear Corporation
1000 Town Center
Twenty-Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075-1238

FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:
J. Steven Baughman
Ropes & Gray LLP, IPRM – Floor 43
800 Boylston Street, Prudential Tower
Boston, MA 02199-3600