Ex Parte Galbreath et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12469204 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/469,204 0512012009 Ashford A. Galbreath
34007 7590 06/29/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,C, I LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
LEAR47104PUSP 1456
EXAMINER
BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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 ASHFORD A. GALBREATH, THOMAS S. HICKS,
RONALD L. MIOTTO, ASAD S. ALI, MARK A. FOLKERT,
WILLIAM P ARUSZKIEWICZ, PAUL SEVERINSKI,
JAMES B. CLAUSER, and THOMAS A. WELCH SR.
Appeal2014-003465
Application 12/469,204
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ashford A. Galbreath et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 18,
19, and 21-24. 1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Claims 2-7, 10-12, and 20 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 14--17
are canceled. Id.
Appeal2014-003465
Application 12/469,204
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a layered seating system with
attachments. Spec. 1 (Title). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal
and is reproduced below.
1. A vehicle seat assembly comprising:
a structural layer formed of a first foam material and
adapted to be mounted to a seat frame to provide support to an
occupant, the structural layer having at least one channel
formed therein;
a cushion layer formed of a second foam material
provided adjacent to the structural layer, the cushion layer
having at least one channel formed therethrough;
a trim member secured over the cushion layer to form a
seating surface; and
at least one attachment member mounted to the trim
member along at least one securement portion, the attachment
member extending through the at least one channel of the
cushion layer and extending into the at least one channel of the
structural layer such that the attachment member is engaged
with and thereby retained by at least the structural layer,
wherein the at least one attachment member includes a
first engagement feature having at least one saw tooth
protrusion that is engaged with and thereby retained in the
channel of the structural layer and a second engagement feature
located between the securement portion and the first
engagement feature that is sized to be received within the
channel of the cushion layer,
the trim member and the cushion layer thereby secured
on the structural layer by the attachment member.
Claims App. 1.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Selbert
Weingartner
Roberts
us 4,789,201
us 5,283,918
us 5,733,001
2
Dec. 6, 1988
Feb. 8, 1994
Mar. 31, 1998
Appeal2014-003465
Application 12/469,204
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(I) Claims 1, 8, 13, 18, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Roberts and Weingartner.
(II) Claims 9, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Roberts, Weingartner, and Selbert.
ANALYSIS
Rejection (I)
The Examiner finds that "Roberts shows all of the teachings of the
claimed invention except the use of a first and second foam material for the
respective structural and cushion layers." Final Act. 2. Nonetheless, the
Examiner finds that Weingartner "shows the conventional use of a seat
assembly having a structural layer (7) of a first foam material and a cushion
layer of second foam material." Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner reasons that
it would have been obvious "to modify the seat assembly of Roberts to have
a structural layer of a first foam material and a cushion layer of a second
foam material as taught by Weingartner et al. in order to provide a varying
comfort and support to a user." Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's proposed combination of
Roberts and Weingartner does not include all the features required by claim
1. Appeal Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in
finding that pedestal members 32a and 32b of Roberts correspond to the
second engagement member recited in claim 1. See Reply Br. 6.
3
Appeal2014-003465
Application 12/469,204
In response, the Examiner states, "so far as positively recited by the
claimed invention that the pedestal members (32a, 32b) do have a second
'engagement feature' via the feet ( 40a, 40b) within the channel of the
cushion layer as shown in Figure 2." Ans. 2; Final Act. 3--4. At the end of
the Examiner's discussion of this issue, the Examiner provides an annotated
version of Roberts' Figure 10 (Ans. 3), which we reproduce below.
,,a.
12-1
!Rh~
The Examiner's annotated version of Figure 10 from Roberts depicts
"a broken away perspective view of the anchor component" (Roberts col. 3,
11. 36-37) with a lead line pointing to a flat portion of pedestal 32, the
annotation at the end of the lead line stating "second engagement feature"
(Ans. 3).
Appellants state, in relation to the Examiner's annotated version of
Roberts' Figure 10, "[t]he smooth area between the securement portion
4
Appeal2014-003465
Application 12/469,204
pedestals 32a, 32b, would not disclose any sort of engagement feature for
securing the attachment member to a foam layer." Reply Br. 3. Appellants
further state: "[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that the plastic material of the anchor would easily slide with respect to the
foam cushion, not function as an engagement feature to secure the anchor
member to the cushion." Reply Br. 3.
When claim terminology is construed in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office during patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading
claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The word "engagement" modifies the word "feature"
in claim 1. The Examiner finds that claim 1 merely requires the "second
engagement feature" to be capable of engaging something, and the above-
noted surfaces in Roberts are capable of such engagement. See Ans. 2.
However, the Examiner does not adequately explain how these surfaces in
Roberts are capable of engaging with anything in Roberts' cushion
assembly. See Ans. 2. Indeed, as shown in Figure 2 of Roberts, the surfaces
40a and 40b identified by the Examiner as corresponding to the recited
second engagement feature do not engage with anything, and a modification
of Roberts' cushion assembly would be required in order to cause these
surfaces to do so. 2 Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner
erred in finding that the flat surfaces identified by the Examiner in Figure 10
of Roberts corresponds to a second engagement feature as recited in claim 1.
2 No such modification has been proposed by the Examiner. See Final Act.
2-3; see also Ans. 2-3.
5
Appeal2014-003465
Application 12/469,204
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 8 and
13 depending therefrom as unpatentable over Roberts and Weingartner.
Independent claims 18 and 22 recite substantially similar features to
those discussed above regarding claim 1, and claims 19 and 23 depend from
claims 18 and 22, respectively. For the reasons discussed above with respect
to the rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 18, 19, 22, and 23 over Roberts and Weingartner.
Re} ection (II)
The Examiner's use of Selbert does not remedy the deficiencies in
Rejection (I) discussed above. See Final Act. 3. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 21, and 24 as unpatentable over
Roberts, Weingartner, and Selbert.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 18, 19, and
21-24 is reversed.
REVERSED
6