Ex Parte Frey et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 28, 2009

11072253 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ANDREAS FREY and JURGEN BAUER
__________

Appeal 2009-005650
Application 11/072,253
Technology Center 3600
__________

Decided: October 28, 2009
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, and 8-17, directed to an adjustable passenger seat. The claims
have been rejected on the grounds of anticipation and obviousness. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2009-005650
Application 11/072,253

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A passenger seat, comprising:
a backrest;
a seat frame coupled to said backrest;
a seat cushion carrier with a seat cushion mounted on said seat frame,
said seat cushion having a front edge; and
an adjustment mechanism coupled to said seat cushion for moving
said front edge relative to said backrest and fixing said front edge in various
adjusted positions relative to said backrest, said adjustment mechanism
including at least one variable-volume energy accumulator bag having at
least one elastomeric enclosing wall biasing said front edge toward a
retracted position, each of said adjusted positions being associated with one
volume level of said accumulator bag, said bag being chargeable with and
emptiable of a pressure medium, said accumulator bag being charged with
said medium in an initial state to locate said front edge in an extended
position with increased seat depth, and emptied or evacuated to locate said
front edge in said retracted position with decreased seat depth.

The Examiner relies on the following evidence:

Mawbey US 4,629,248 Dec. 16, 1986

The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
• Claims 1, 3-5,1 8-11, and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Mawbey.

• Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mawbey.

We reverse.

1 The Examiner listed claim 6 as rejected (Ans. 3), but claim 6 was canceled
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2009-005650
Application 11/072,253

3
ANTICIPATION
Issue
Claim 1 is directed to a passenger seat with an adjustment mechanism
for changing the depth of the seat. The adjustment mechanism is coupled to
the seat cushion and comprises a “variable-volume energy accumulator bag”
which can be charged with and emptied of a pressure medium in order to
extend or retract the front edge of the seat (claim 1).
The Examiner finds that Mawbey discloses a vehicle passenger seat
with an adjustment mechanism comprising an “energy accumulator bag . . .
changeable [sic] with and emptiable of pressurized ambient air in order to
selectively increase the seat depth” (Ans. 4).
Appellants concede that Mawbey’s seat can be adjusted by inflating
and deflating a bladder, but contend that “[t]he Mawbey seat has a front
portion that pivots up and down, and does not increase or decrease the depth
between the front edge of the seat and the seat back, as specifically recited in
appealed claim 1” (App. Br. 4).
In view of these conflicting positions, the issue raised by this rejection
is as follows: Has the Examiner established that inflating or deflating the
bladder on Mawbey’s passenger seat adjusts the depth of the seat cushion by
extending or retracting the front edge of the seat cushion relative to the
backrest?
Findings of Fact
FF1 Claim 1 is directed to a passenger seat with a backrest, a seat
frame coupled to the backrest, a seat cushion carrier with a seat cushion
mounted on the seat frame, and an adjustment mechanism coupled to the
seat cushion for changing the depth of the front edge of the seat cushion
Appeal 2009-005650
Application 11/072,253

4
relative to the backrest. The adjustment mechanism comprises a variable-
volume energy accumulator bag which can be charged with and emptied of a
pressure medium in order to extend or retract the front edge of the seat
relative to the backrest.
FF2 Mawbey discloses a vehicle seat with an inflatable mechanism
for adjusting the seat’s thigh support. Figures 1-3, reproduced below, show
the front of Mawbey’s seat cushion with the thigh support in its fully
deflated condition (Figure 1), the thigh support in its fully inflated condition
(Figure 2), and the bladder used to inflate the thigh support (Figure 3):

Appeal 2009-005650
Application 11/072,253

5
Mawbey’s Figures 1 and 2 show the front of the passenger seat with the
thigh support completely deflated and fully inflated, respectively. Figure 3
shows the inflatable bladder 28.
FF3 As explained in the following excerpts, and as shown in
Mawbey’s Figures 1 and 2, the upper portion of the front edge of Mawbey’s
seat cushion can be raised or lowered relative to the level of the outer seat
cushion 20 by inflating or deflating the bladder:
[A] conventional vehicle seat includes a . . . seat cushion
support 10 having a . . . front cross bar 12. . . joined or pivoted
to the seat back support. . . . The cushion support includes an
arcuate upwardly extending forward portion 14 which is rigidly
secured to the front cross bar 12. An inner seat cushion or bun
16 of . . . foam material seats on the seat cushion support 10 . . .
An intermediate layer of padding 18 covers the bun 16 and an
outer seat cushion 20 overlies the padding 18.
A seat cushion support extension 24 extends transversely
of the forward edge portion of the portion 14 of the support 10
and is hinged thereto at 26 in a conventional manner, such as by
a piano type hinge. The extension 24 is movable between a
fully lowered first position shown in FIG. 1 and a fully raised
second position shown in FIG. 2. The extension 24 may
likewise be located in any position between the fully raised and
fully lowered positions . . . An inflatable bladder 28 overlies the
extension 24 and the forward edge portion of the seat cushion
support 10.

(Mawbey, col. 2, ll. 17-48.)
[I]nflation of cavity 34 distends the bladder 28 as can be seen
from a comparison of FIGS. 1 and 2 . . . This folds or pivots the
extension 24 upwardly from its FIG. 1 position to its FIG. 2
position . . . The consequent slight raising provides a firm
support for the thigh of the seat occupant at the forward edge
portion of the seat cushion.

(Id. at col. 3, ll. 28-42.)
Appeal 2009-005650
Application 11/072,253

6
Principles of Law
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Analysis
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 14-17 as anticipated
by Mawbey. The Examiner found that
[T]he front edge of [Mawbey’s] seat cushion, as shown in
Figure 1, is extended once the foldable portion (54) is pivoted
up with the increase in volume of the accumulator bag (28), as
taught by Mawbey. The foldable portions (54,64) allows the
seat depth of the seat cushion to be increased in so much as the
foldable portion of a “drop leaf table” increases the depth of a
table . . . Clearly the seat depth is increased by the foldable
portions (54,64) being pivoted upwards and outwardly from the
seat cushion to “effectively” increase the seat depth of the
seat cushion within a horizontal plane.

(Ans. 5.)
Appellants contend that Mawbey’s adjustment mechanism “only
allows the upward and downward pivoting motion of the seat cushion front
edge, and does not allow the lateral extension of the front edge” (App. Br.
5).
The Examiner’s position is that “the features upon which applicant
relies (i.e., lateral extension of the front edge) are not recited in the rejected
claim(s)” (Ans. 5).
Nevertheless, claim 1 does require lateral extension of the front edge
of the seat, inasmuch as the claim explicitly requires a mechanism that can
extend or retract the front edge of the seat cushion “relative to said backrest”
Appeal 2009-005650
Application 11/072,253

7
(FF1). Mawbey’s mechanism adjusts the front edge of the seat vertically -
raising and lowering the upper portion of the front edge of the seat cushion
relative to the level of the seat cushion 20, essentially changing the profile of
the front edge of the seat from rounded off to squared off (FF2, FF3). The
Examiner has not established that the front edge of Mawbey’s seat can also
be extended or retracted relative to the backrest to change the overall depth
of the seat, as required by the claims.
Conclusions of Law
The Examiner has not established that inflating or deflating the
bladder on Mawbey’s passenger seat adjusts the depth of the seat cushion by
extending or retracting the front edge of the seat cushion relative to the
backrest.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 14-17 as anticipated by
Mawbey is reversed.
OBVIOUSNESS
Issue
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 as unpatentable over
Mawbey (Ans. 4-5).
The issue raised by this rejection is as follows: Has the Examiner
established that a passenger seat with an adjustment mechanism that adjusts
the depth of the seat cushion relative to the backrest by inflating or deflating
an “energy accumulator bag” would have been obvious given Mawbey’s
disclosure?
Analysis
Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 1, and therefore require the
limitations of claim 1. In addition, these claims require that the accumulator
Appeal 2009-005650
Application 11/072,253

8
bag encloses, or is formed of large pore foam. These features are not
disclosed by Mawbey, but the Examiner concluded that “it would have been
an obvious matter of design choice to use a ‘large-pore’ foam . . . for
forming the accumulator bag” (Ans. 4-5).
However, as discussed above, Mawbey does not disclose a seat with
an adjustment mechanism which adjusts the depth of the seat cushion by
extending or retracting the front edge of the seat cushion relative to the
backrest. The Examiner’s rejection does not address this underlying
deficiency in the reference.
Conclusions of Law
The Examiner has not established that a passenger seat with an
adjustment mechanism that adjusts the depth of the seat cushion by
extending or retracting the its front edge relative to the backrest by inflating
or deflating an “energy accumulator bag” would have been obvious given
Mawbey’s disclosure.
The rejection of claims 12 and 13 as unpatentable over Mawbey is
reversed.
Appeal 2009-005650
Application 11/072,253

9
SUMMARY
• The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Mawbey is reversed.

• The rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mawbey is reversed.

REVERSED

dm

ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.
1300 19TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20036