Ex Parte Dwire et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2012

11088457 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JEFFREY DWIRE and RYAN RHOADES
____________________

Appeal 2010-000832
Application 11/088,457
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000832
Application 11/088,457

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jeffrey Dwire and Ryan Rhoades (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11. Specifically, the
Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Troendle (US 2,173,569, iss. Sep. 19, 1939). The Examiner also rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 2, 5, 6, and 8 as unpatentable over Troendle
and Thompson (US Re15,296, reiss. Feb. 28, 1922); claim 4 as unpatentable
over Troendle and Montgomery (US 1,329,988, iss. Feb. 3, 1920); claim 7
as unpatentable over Troendle and Hill (US 2,383,125, iss. Aug. 21, 1945);
claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Troendle, Thompson, and
Montgomery; and claim 11 as unpatentable over Troendle, Montgomery,
and Hill. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an adjustable seat back cover/tray
assembly. See Spec., para. [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. An adjustable seat back cover/tray assembly for attachment
to a seat back of an automotive vehicle, comprising:
a frame,
a first guide coupled to the seat back to support the frame
for generally up and down movement relative to the seat
back between an up position and a down position,
a second guide hinged to the frame for pivotal movement
about a generally horizontal pivot axis from a generally
horizontal position extending rearwardly from the frame to a
collapsed position overlying the frame,
Appeal 2010-000832
Application 11/088,457

3
a tray mounted on the second guide for sliding movement
from a forward retracted position closely adjacent to said
pivot axis rearwardly to an extended position more remote
from said pivot axis,
a collapsible guide support that is collapsible to support
said second guide selectively in said generally horizontal
position and in said collapsed position, and
a frame lock for releasably locking said frame in selected
positions of up and down adjustment along said first guide,
said tray providing a cover substantially concealing said
frame, said first guide, said second guide, said guide support
and said frame lock when said frame is in the up position,
said guide support is in the collapsed position, and said tray
is in the retracted position.

OPINION
Anticipation by Troendle
The Examiner made findings showing how Troendle’s table assembly
anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. Ans. 4. Appellants assert that
“Troendle does not teach, suggest or disclose a collapsible guide support
that is collapsible to support said second guide in said generally horizontal
position and in said collapsed position.” App. Br. 7. Appellants do not
dispute any of the other findings of the Examiner reading the subject matter
of claim 1 on Troendle’s table. Accordingly, the only issue presented for
our review of the rejection of claim 1 is whether the Examiner erred in
finding that Troendle’s props 4 and turnbuckles 5 (or props 4, turnbuckles 5,
slides 3, and bolts 18) constitute “a collapsible guide support that is
collapsible to support said second guide selectively in said generally
horizontal position and in said collapsed position” (emphasis added), as
called for in claim 1.
Appeal 2010-000832
Application 11/088,457

4
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7-8) do not persuade us that the
Examiner erred in finding that Troendle’s props 4 and turnbuckles 5 (or
props 4, turnbuckles 5, slides 3, and bolts 18) form a collapsible guide
support as claimed. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments. Ans. 9, l. 3 – 12, l. 21.
It is well settled that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) is obligated to give claim terms their broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account any enlightenment by way of definitions
or otherwise found in the specification. In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he PTO must give claims their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification . . . .
Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for
claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”). “[A]s applicants
may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during
prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” Id.
The Examiner interpreted the claim term “collapsible” as “capable of
storing or closing” (Ans. 12, ll. 10-111). Appellants’ Specification does not
provide a lexicographic definition of the term “collapsible.” Thus, it was
appropriate for the Examiner to consult a general dictionary definition of the
term. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc) (Where the specification does not assign or suggest a particular
definition to a claim term, in determining the ordinary and customary
meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art,

1 See WordNet definitions of “collapsible” and “collapse” (third definition of
verb) appended to the Examiner’s Answer. See also Fin. Rej. 7
(interpreting “collapsible as “capable of being collapsed”).
Appeal 2010-000832
Application 11/088,457

5
it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for
guidance.).
Appellants use the term “collapsed” to describe the vertical or stored
position of the tracks 34, 36 of the second guide 32 shown in figures 1 and 9.
Spec., paras. [003], [0019], [0021], [0023]. Appellants also use the term
“collapsed” to describe the vertical or stored position of the tray 42 shown in
figure 1. Id. at [0021]. In moving from the generally horizontal position
shown in figures 2 and 3 to the “collapsed” position shown in figures 1 and
9, the second guide 32 and tray 42 simply pivot from the horizontal position
to the vertical position, thereby making the entire tray assembly more
compact, but without themselves becoming smaller or more compact.
Appellants’ “collapsible” guide support 56 comprises linkages 60, 62
each comprising a pair of links 64, 66 whose adjacent inner ends are pivoted
to one another at 68. Spec., para. [0021]. The links 64, 66 of Appellants’
guide support 56 pivot relative to one another so as to be folded up alongside
one another, forming a shorter, folded linkage, as illustrated in figure 9.
Appellants use the term “collapsing” to describe this pivoting into the folded
linkage. Spec, para. [0022].
Therefore, Appellants’ usage of the terms “collapse” and “collapsible”
in their Specification suggests a meaning that encompasses pivoting (or
capable of pivoting) into a vertical or stored position, either with or without
folding upon itself. In other words, the Examiner’s construction of
“collapsible” is consistent with Appellants’ Specification. We agree with
the Examiner that Appellants’ asserted construction of the term “collapsible”
as meaning “fold down into a more compact shape” (App. Br. 8) is narrower
than the scope of the term suggested by Appellants’ Specification.
Appeal 2010-000832
Application 11/088,457

6
Nevertheless, the Examiner also correctly found that, even construing the
term “collapsible” in the manner urged by Appellants, Troendle’s guide
support comprising slide 3, bolt 18, props 4, and turnbuckles 5 satisfies the
“collapsible” limitation. Ans. 12, ll. 16-21.
Appellants argue that Troendle teaches away from a modification to
include a collapsible guide support. App. Br. 8. Since teaching away is
irrelevant to anticipation, this argument is not addressed further with respect
to the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Troendle. See Seachange Int’l,
Inc. v. C-COR, Inc. 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Examiner did not err in finding that Troendle’s props 4 and
turnbuckles 5 (or props 4, turnbuckles 5, slides 3, and bolts 18) constitute “a
collapsible guide support that is collapsible to support said second guide
selectively in said generally horizontal position and in said collapsed
position,” as called for in claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Troendle. We also sustain the rejection of claim 3, for which
Appellants have not asserted any separate arguments and which thus falls
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Obviousness in view of Troendle and Thompson
Appellants group all of claims 2, 5, 6, and 8 together in contesting this
rejection. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select claim 2
as representative, with claims 5, 6, and 8 standing or falling therewith.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, and 8 should be
reversed for the same reasons asserted against the rejection of claim 1. App.
Appeal 2010-000832
Application 11/088,457

7
Br. 10-11. For the reasons discussed above, the arguments2 asserted against
the rejection of claim 1 are unpersuasive here as well.
Appellants also argue that the rejection should be reversed on the
basis that Thompson is not analogous art, and thus cannot properly be
combined with Troendle or cited as prior art. App. Br. 11. We agree with
the Examiner that Thompson is analogous art. See Ans. 13.
We sustain the rejection of claim 2 and of claims 5, 6, and 8, which
fall with claim 2, as unpatentable over Troendle and Thompson.
Obviousness in view of Troendle and Montgomery
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites that the guide
support includes a linkage having pivotably connected links, with one of the
links being pivoted to the frame and another of the links being pivoted to the
second guide. The Examiner found that Troendle’s guide support (i.e., props
4 and turnbuckles 5) lacks pivotally connected links as called for in claim 4.
Ans. 6. The Examiner found that Montgomery discloses a seat back
cover/tray assembly similar to that of Troendle having “a frame 10 (See Fig.
1), a tray 16 (see Fig. 3), and a guide support 17, 18 with a linkage having
pivotally connected links with [one] link pivoted to the frame and another
link pivoted to the tray.” Id. The Examiner reasoned that it would have
been obvious to modify Troendle’s seat back cover/tray assembly such that
the guide support includes a linkage having pivotably connected links with
one of the links pivoted to the frame and another link pivoted to the second

2 While the rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, and 8 is based on obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner found that Troendle discloses an assembly
comprising a collapsible guide support as claimed, and thus did not propose
any modification to include a collapsible guide support. Accordingly,
Appellants’ teaching away argument is not germane to this rejection.
Appeal 2010-000832
Application 11/088,457

8
guide, in view of Montgomery’s showing that such a linkage folds within the
tray when retracted and was generally known in the art to provide adequate
support for a retractable tray. Id. at 6-7.
Appellants assert that claim 4, which depends from claim 1, is
allowable for the reasons set forth by Appellants with regard to claim 1.
App. Br 12. Appellants’ arguments for the patentability of claim 1 are
premised on Appellants’ assertion that Troendle lacks a “collapsible” guide
support as called for in claim 1. As discussed above, we do not agree with
Appellants on this point. Thus, Appellants’ arguments are unconvincing.
Moreover, even assuming the Examiner did err in finding that Troendle’s
props 4 and turnbuckles 5 (or props 4, turnbuckles 5, slides 3, and bolts 18)
constitute a “collapsible” guide support as called for in claim 1, we do not
agree with Appellants that Troendle teaches away from modification to
include a collapsible guide support. Prior art does not teach away from
claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar
problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits or otherwise
discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants do not specifically challenge the Examiner’s articulated
reason for modifying Troendle’s seat back tray assembly to replace the props
and turnbuckles with a supporting linkage of the type taught by
Montgomery.3 Rather, Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in finding

3 Indeed, the proposed modification appears to be nothing more than the
simple substitution of one known linkage for supporting a seat back tray
with another known linkage for the same purpose. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appeal 2010-000832
Application 11/088,457

9
that Montgomery’s support links 17 are pivotably connected to the tray and
frame. App. Br. 12.
Appellants’ assertion is not correct. Montgomery expressly discloses
that “[s]upport straps or links 17, pivoted at 18, have pivotal connection with
the back sections or trays 11 and with the framework 8.” P. 1, ll. 72-75.
Appellants have not convinced us the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 4. We sustain the rejection.
Rejections of Claims 7 and 9-11
In contesting the rejections of these dependent claims, Appellants
merely rely on the arguments asserted in contesting the rejection of claim 1.
See App. Br. 13. These arguments are not persuasive, for the reasons set
forth above. We sustain the rejections of claim 7 as unpatentable over
Troendle and Hill, of claims 9 and 10 as unpatentable over Troendle,
Thompson, and Montgomery, and of claim 11 as unpatentable over
Troendle, Montgomery, and Hill.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2010-000832
Application 11/088,457

10
hh