Ex Parte Andersson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2017

12719074 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017)

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.
12/719,074 03/08/2010 Christer Andersson LEAR48314PUSP 6380
34007 7590 03/17/2017
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2017 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 @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTER ANDERS SON and ODD JAEGTNES
Appeal 2014-000161
Application 12/719,074
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christer Andersson and Odd Jaegtnes (Appellants)1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 12, 17, and
20.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lear Corporation.
Br. 1.
2 The Examiner has deemed that claims 3—11, 13—16, 18, and 19 are
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the
base claim and any intervening claim. Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2014-000161
Application 12/719,074
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “a seat assembly having
an armrest.” Spec. 1:14. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 1 of the
Claims Appendix, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A seat assembly comprising:
a seat back; and
an armrest disposed on the seat back and configured to
pivot about an axis of rotation, the armrest having a headrest
that is moveable with respect to the armrest between an
extended position and a retracted position;
wherein the armrest is inhibited from pivoting about the
axis of rotation when the headrest is in the extended position.
REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Schnabel (US 2007/0069561 Al, pub. Mar. 29, 2007).
Claims 1, 2, 12, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Crombez (US 7,735,913 B2, iss. June 15, 2010) and
Sutton (US 5,826,942, iss. Oct. 27, 1998).
Claims 2, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schnabel and Heussner (US 5,366,270, iss. Nov. 22,
1994).
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schnabel, Heussner, and Crombez.
2
Appeal 2014-000161
Application 12/719,074
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
The Examiner finds that Schnabel discloses all of the elements of
independent claim 1, including armrest 11 having headrest 12. Final Act. 2;
see also Ans. 3 (correcting the reference numeral for the seat assembly).
Appellants traverse, arguing that because “the head rest 12 is mounted
on a seat back frame 4 that is disposed above and is separate from the arm
rest 11,” Schnabel “discloses an arm rest 11 that does not have a headrest.”
Br. 4. Thus, Appellants argue that “having” requires the headrest to be a
part of the armrest.
The Examiner disagrees, answering that “[cjlaim 1 [] does not
positively state or define that the headrest has to be ‘directly mounted’ to
the armrest.” Ans. 3.
We have considered the respective positions articulated by the
Examiner and Appellants, and agree with Appellants. During examination
proceedings, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
Appellants disclose their armrest as being a component of the armrest.
See, e.g., Spec. 5:23—24, Figs. 3—5. We further note that one dictionary
definition of “have,” of which “having” is the present participle, is “to hold,
3
Appeal 2014-000161
Application 12/719,074
include, or contain as a part or whole.” See, e.g., http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/have (last visited March 3, 2017). Thus, we
construe “armrest having a headrest” to mean the armrest includes or
contains the headrest. This construction is buttressed by Appellants’ use of
“having” in claim 17, which requires an armrest having not only a headrest,
but also having “a top surface [and] a front surface.” Claims App. 4.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred by interpreting
“armrest having a headrest” as including Schnabel’s headrest 12 that is not a
included in or contained by armrest 11 (see Schnabel Figs. 3—5).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
as being anticipated by Schnabel.
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Crombez and Sutton
Claims 1 and 2
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Crombez
discloses a seat assembly substantially as claimed, including armrest 38
having headrest 28 that is movable with respect thereto, but does not
disclose “the armrest being inhibited from pivoting about an axis of rotation
when the headrest is in an extended position.” Final Act. 2—3. The
Examiner finds that Sutton discloses headrest 24 that is movable between an
extended position and a retracted position and that inhibits pivoting of a seat
back when the headrest is in the extended position. Id. at 3 (citing Sutton
2:1—28). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan “to modify the armrest of [Crombez] with the headrest as taught by
Sutton ... to provide a mechanism against inadvertent deployment of the
armrest to the stowed position.” Id.
4
Appeal 2014-000161
Application 12/719,074
Appellants traverse, arguing that Crombez “does not disclose or
suggest an armrest that has a headrest that is moveable with respect to an
armrest” and that Sutton “does not disclose or . . . suggest an armrest.”
Br. 5.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they attack the
individual teachings of the references and do not address what the
combination of references teaches, as explained by the Examiner.
“Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner finds that Crombez teaches the recited armrest having a
headrest and that Sutton teaches a headrest, movable relative to its
supporting structure, that inhibits pivoting of that supporting structure when
in an extended position. Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 3^4. When combining
Sutton’s headrest with Crombez’s armrest as set forth by the Examiner,
headrest 28 of Crombez would be movable with respect to armrest 38 and
inhibit rotation of armrest 38 when in the extended position. Appellants’
arguments fail to address the combined teachings of the references, which
are relied upon by the Examiner to demonstrate obviousness of the claimed
subject matter. Appellants thus fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection.3
3 We agree with Appellants that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding in the
Final Action, Crombez does not disclose movement of the headrest relative
to the armrest. This error, however, is rendered moot by the modification to
include Sutton’s movable headrest.
5
Appeal 2014-000161
Application 12/719,074
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable
over Crombez and Sutton. With respect to the rejection of claim 2, which
depends from claim 1, Appellants rely only on the arguments presented
above in regards to the rejection of claim 1. Br. 6. Accordingly, for the
same reasons as discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claim 2 as
being unpatentable over Crombez and Sutton.
Claim 12
Independent claim 12 claims a seat assembly similar to that of claim
1, but further requires that the headrest is “configured to pivot. . . between a
first rotational position in which the headrest engages the seat back and a
second rotational position in which the headrest is spaced apart from the seat
back.” Claims App. 3. The Examiner rejects claim 12 in the same manner
as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Br. 2—3.
Appellants traverse, arguing that Sutton’s headrest “always engages
the seat back 20 and does not pivot between ‘a first rotational position in
which the headrest engages the seat back and a second rotational position in
which the headrest is spaced apart from the seat back.’” Br. 6.
Initially, we note that the Examiner does not address the recitation of
claim 12 that the headrest be configured to pivot to a second position in
which the headrest is spaced apart from the seatback. Final Act. 2—3; Ans.
3—5. We further note that both Crombez and Sutton disclose headrests that
are attached to seat backs as extensions thereof. See, e.g., Crombez Fig. 3;
Sutton Fig. 1. Although Sutton discloses rotation of its headrest (see Sutton
3:21—43), our review does not reveal any disclosure that Sutton’s headrest is
configured to pivot to a position spaced apart from the seat back.
6
Appeal 2014-000161
Application 12/719,074
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred by finding that
Sutton discloses such a headrest.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12
as being unpatentable over Crombez and Sutton.
Claims 17 and 20
Independent claim 17 claims a seat assembly similar to that of claim
1, but further requires that the “armrest [have] ... a front surface” and that
the headrest be rotatable “to a second rotational position in which the
headrest is spaced apart from the front surface.” Claims App. 4. The
Examiner rejects claim 17 in the same manner as discussed above with
respect to claims 1 and 12. Br. 2—3.
As discussed above, we find that the Sutton’s headrest is not rotatable
to a position spaced apart from the front surface of a seat back. We note that
the Examiner did not address this recitation of claim 17. Final Act. 2—3;
Ans. 3—5.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17,
nor of its dependent claim 20, as being unpatentable over Crombez and
Sutton.
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Schnabel and Heussner
The Examiner finds that Schnabel discloses “all of the teachings of
the claimed invention except the use of [a] headrest rotating between first
and second rotational positions.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that
Heussner discloses a headrest having this feature, and reasons that it would
have been obvious to a skilled artisan “to modify the headrest of Schnabel
7
Appeal 2014-000161
Application 12/719,074
with the teachings of Heussner ... to allow the headrest to be automatically
rotated quickly to and from engagement with the armrest.” Id.
As discussed above, Schnabel does not disclose an armrest having a
headrest. The Examiner does not rely on Heussner in any manner that
would remedy this deficiency.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 12, and 17 as
being unpatentable over Schnabel and Heussner.
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Schnabel, Heussner, and Crombez
Claim 20 depends from claim 17 and requires that “the armrest further
comprises a cupholder and a storage bin.” Claims App. 4. The Examiner
finds that “Schnabel in view of [Heussner] shows all of the teachings of the
claimed invention except the use of the armrest with a storage bin and
cupholder.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Crombez teaches an
armrest having these features, and reasons that it would have been obvious
to a skilled artisan “to modify the armrest of Schnabel in view of [Heussner]
with the cupholder and storage bin as taught by Crombez ... to provide
more convenience and comfort to an occupant.” Id.
As discussed above, Schnabel does not disclose an armrest having a
headrest. The Examiner does not rely on Heussner or Crombez in any
manner that would remedy this deficiency.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 as being
unpatentable over Schnabel, Heussner, and Crombez.
8
Appeal 2014-000161
Application 12/719,074
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1 as being anticipated by
Schnabel is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 12, 17, and 20 as being
unpatentable over Crombez and Sutton is affirmed with respect to claims 1
and 2, and reversed with respect to claims 12, 17, and 20.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 12, and 17 as being
unpatentable over Schnabel and Heussner is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 20 as being unpatentable over
Schnabel, Heussner, and Crombez is reversed.
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-IN-PART
9