Ex Parte Yetukuri et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

11538942 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

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.
11/538,942 10/05/2006 Arjun V. Yetukuri LEAR 43352 PUS 2849
34007 7590 07/27/2012
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ARJUN V. YETUKURI, VIKAS PATWARDHAN, and
GERALD S. LOCKE
____________

Appeal 2010-004718
Application 11/538,942
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004718
Application 11/538,942

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 3, 4, and 12. Amd. App. Br. 2.1 Claims 1, 2, 5-11,
and 13-21 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

REJECTIONS
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kawazumi (JP 63025153 A, published Feb. 2, 1988)2,3and Yamada (US
2005/0099149 A1, published May 12, 2005).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kawazumi and Lohss (US 6,672,727 B1, issued Jan. 6, 2004).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kawazumi and Reikerås (US 6,120,099, issued Sep. 19, 2000).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter pertains to vehicle seat head restraints for
comfort and safety of an occupant. Spec. 1. Claims 3, 4, and 12 are the

1 Throughout this Opinion we shall refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed
August 28, 2009, as “App. Br.”; Appellants’ Amended Appeal Brief, filed
September 30, 2009, as “Amd. App. Br.”; and Appellants’ Reply Brief, filed
January 12, 2010, as “Reply Br.”
2 Citations to Kawazumi are directed to the English language translation
provided by the Examiner (PTO 10-0652, Translated by Schreiber
Translations, Inc. (November 2009)).
3 The Examiner’s Answer, Appeal Brief, and Reply Brief refer to
Kawazumi as JP 63025153 A, Koji, or Koji et al.
Appeal 2010-004718
Application 11/538,942

3
independent claims on appeal. Claim 3 is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal and recites:
3. A head restraint for a driver vehicle seat
comprising:
a central head restraint portion extending from a seat
back of a driver vehicle seat for supporting a head of a
driver seated upon the vehicle seat;
at least one lateral head restraint portion oriented
adjacent to a lateral side of the central head restraint
portion for supporting the head of the driver, the lateral
head restraint portion being movable relative to the
central head restraint portion; and
an actuator in operable engagement with the lateral
head restraint portion for moving the lateral head
restraint portion out of a lateral line of sight of the driver
in response to an input from the vehicle during an
operating condition of the vehicle;
wherein the input is generated in response to the
driver actuating a gear shifter into reverse so that the
lateral head restraint portion moves out of the lateral line
of vision for improving the view of the driver for driving
in reverse.

OPINION
The rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Kawazumi and Yamada
Claim 3 recites “a central head restraint portion extending from a seat
back of a driver vehicle seat for supporting a head of a driver seated upon
the vehicle seat.” App. Br., Claims Appendix. The Examiner finds
Kawazumi discloses “at least one lateral head restraint portion (4a, 4b)
adjacent to a lateral side of the central head restraint portion [(Figure 4)].”
Ans. 3, 4. The Appellants contend that Kawazumi does not teach the central
head restraint portion as required by claim 3. Reply Br. 3. To support their
Appeal 2010-004718
Application 11/538,942

4
contention the Appellants cite to Kawazumi at page 5, which discloses that
ascending and descending headrests, e.g., 4a and 4b, slide along the seat
back, e.g., seat back 2,. See id. The Appellants’ contention is not persuasive
for the following reasons.
Kawazumi’s Figure 4 depicts a driver vehicle seat 1 including a seat
cushion 3, a seat back 2, and head rests 4a and 4b. When the top of head
rests 4a, 4b are in a descended position,4 the portion of seat back 2 that lies
horizontally between the head rests 4a and 4b (hereinafter “seat back upper
portion”) is at the same or substantially the same level as the head rests 4a
and 4b. Logically, since seat portions 4a and 4b are head rests, then the seat
back upper portion can be considered a head rest as well. Furthermore, an
occupant seated in driver vehicle seat 1 may rest their head against the seat
back upper portion or head rests 4a, 4b while in a descended position. Also,
Kawazumi’s seat back upper portion is between lateral headrests 4a and 4b,
and as such, the seat back upper portion can also be considered a central
head rest.
Further, Kawazumi’s central head rest extends from the portion of the
seat back where a driver’s back would be located, i.e., generally, the portion
of seat back 2 between above the seat cushion 3 and below the seat back
upper portion. It is notable that the Specification states “the head restraint
36 may be incorporated into the seat back 38, such as in an integrated seat,
or in a sport seat, which often do not utilize rods 52.” Spec. 6, ll. 6-8. This
statement supports the Examiner’s determination that a portion of a seat
back can extend from another portion of the seat back in-part because the

4 The head rests 4a and/or 4b are in a “descended position” when the
headrests are in line with the top of seat back 2. See fig. 4.
Appeal 2010-004718
Application 11/538,942

5
Appellants do not disclaim this possibility. See also Spec. 3. ll. 3, 4 (using
the term “extends” in “[a] seat back 34 extends from the seat bottom 32”
where both the seat back 34 and seat bottom 32 are portions of a driver seat
28). As such, Kawazumi’s central head rest corresponds to “a central head
restraint portion extending from a seat back of a driver vehicle seat for
supporting a head of a driver seated upon the vehicle seat” as recited in
claim 3.
The Appellants also contend that Yamada does not teach the “central
head restraint portion” as required by claim 3. Reply Br. 3. Since the
Examiner relies on Kawazumi, and not Yamada, to teach this limitation of
claim 3, the Appellants’ contention is not persuasive. The Appellants also
point out that Kawazumi criticizes prior art head restraints with central
portions citing to a quotation from page 4 of Kawazumi, “‘when the head
rests are not in use, the head rests are protruded from the seat back, causing
an obstacle.’” Reply Br. 4-5. On that basis the Appellants contend that
Kawazumi and the proposed combination of Kawazumi and Yamada, teach
away from employing a central head restraint portion as claimed. Reply Br.
4-5. This contention is not persuasive because the prior art is not reflective
of Kawazumi’s central head rest. Thus, the Appellants have not presented a
persuasive argument that the Examiner’s finding is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
The Examiner finds Kawazumi discloses a seat 1 including an
actuator (drive motor 12) that controls the position of lateral head rests 4a,
4b via a signal from a control circuit 10, which supports Kawazumi’s
purpose “to secure the side and rear visibilities by ascending and descending
the head rests.” Kawazumi, p. 5. The control circuit sends the signal in
Appeal 2010-004718
Application 11/538,942

6
response to determinations taken from numerous switches including a shift
lever switch 5b, e.g., “the control circuit 10 determines whether the position
of the shift lever is a reverse position.” Kawazumi, p. 12, fig. 7. The
Examiner also finds Yamada discloses that when control unit (main
controller) 10 receives a reverse signal S1 from a vehicle shift lever situated
in a reverse gear, a signal is sent to mirror motor M2 (actuator) to tilt down
so that a driver can view the vehicle’s rear wheel (Ans. 4, Yamada, paras.
[0027], [0030], fig. 1), and concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify Kawazumi’s head rest control system with Yamada’s “input [signal]
. . . to make the headrest actuate to provide a clear view behind the vehicle
when reversing the vehicle.” Ans. 4.
The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reasoning lacks rational
underpinning and relies on impermissible hindsight because the reasoning is
taken from the Appellants’ Specification, in particular page 4, ll. 2-5 and 20-
22. App. Br. 8-9. The Appellants’ contention is unpersuasive because
Yamada’s control unit 10, which provides a signal that actuates mirror motor
M2, teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that a control unit can send an
actuation signal based on a determination that a vehicle shift lever in a
reverse gear. See Ans. 4, 6. As such, the Examiner has articulated adequate
reasoning with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined the teachings of these references to result in the
claimed subject matter. Further, the Examiner-identified input signal from
Kawazumi’s control circuit 10 is conditioned on being sent from the vehicle
being placed in reverse via shift lever switch 5b; and, a disclosure that
anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103, for anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See In re
Appeal 2010-004718
Application 11/538,942

7
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974); see also In re Fracalossi, 681
F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982).
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellants’ contentions are not
persuasive. Thus, the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Kawazumi
and Yamada is sustained.

The rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Kawazumi and Lohss
Claims 3 and 4 both recite “a central head restraint portion extending
from a seat back of a driver vehicle seat for supporting a head of a driver
seated upon the vehicle seat.” App. Br., Claims Appendix. Similar to the
contentions provided above for the rejection of claim 3, as unpatentable over
Kawazumi and Yamada, the Appellants contend that Kawazumi and Lohss
do not teach a “central head restraint portion” as required by claim 4, and
that the references teach away from employing a central head restraint
portion as claimed. Reply Br. 5-6. For the reasons provided above these
contentions are not persuasive.
Claim 4 is identical to claim 3 except that claim 4 substitutes the
following wherein clause for the wherein clause of claim 3, “wherein the
input is generated in response to the driver actuating a turn signal indicator
so that the lateral head restraint portion moves out of the lateral line of
vision for improving the view of the driver to a lateral side of the vehicle.”
App. Br., Claims Appendix. The Examiner finds that Kawazumi teaches the
limitations recited in claim 4 except for “the input being generated in
response to the occupant actuating a turn signal [indicator],” as called for by
claim 4. Ans. 5. The Examiner relies on Lohss’s disclosure, which teaches
a control system that adjusts a vehicle’s mirror position mechanism in
Appeal 2010-004718
Application 11/538,942

8
response to actuation of a vehicle turn signal so that a driver can see a blind
spot. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Kawazumi’s head rest control system with Lohss’s turn signal input to
provide a clear view of the sides of the vehicle when changing lanes (Ans. 5,
7; Lohss, col. 2, ll. 40-45), and that the modification of Kawazumi’s head
rest control system improves safety by providing a driver with a less
obstructed line of sight. Ans. 7.
The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as
unpatentable over Kawazumi and Lohss lacks adequate articulated reasoning
based on rational underpinning for the proposed combination and relies on
impermissible hindsight because the reasoning is taken from the Appellants’
Specification. App. Br. 10-11. The Appellants’ contention is unpersuasive
because Lohss’s teaching of actuation of a mirror that provides a clear view
for a driver teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that a control system can
send an actuation signal based on a determination that a vehicle’s turn signal
has been activated. See Ans. 7. As such, the Examiner has articulated
adequate reasoning with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined the teachings of these references to
result in the claimed subject matter. Thus, the rejection of claim 4 as
unpatentable over Kawazumi and Lohss is sustained.

The rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Kawazumi and Reikerås
Claim 12 is identical to claim 3 except that claim 12 substitutes the
following wherein clause for the wherein clause of claim 3, “wherein the
lateral head restraint portion is retractable within the central head restraint
portion.” The Examiner finds Kawazumi lacks, but Reikerås discloses,
Appeal 2010-004718
Application 11/538,942

9
retractable lateral headrest portions within a central head restraint portion
(Ans. 4, Reikerås, figs. 4a, 4b), and concludes in the Examiner’s Answer at
page 4:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of invention to have created a
track for movement of the lateral portions. The
motivation for doing so would be to create lateral
portions that can retract to create a more aesthetic
appeal to the head restraint.
At the outset we note that the Examiner modifies Kawazumi’s head
restraint with Reikerås’s teaching on the basis of aesthetic appeal. The
Appellants assert that Reikerås’s headrest is for comfort during sleeping and
as such, contend that Reikerås “teaches away from employing the teachings
of their sleep assisting head-rest with a driver seat for use during operation
of the vehicle.” App. Br. 6. The Appellants’ contention is not persuasive
because “the intended use of the device does not preclude the device from
fulfilling various other functions. For example, the lateral head restraint
portions are also capable of providing lateral head support to a user while
operating the vehicle.” Ans. 5-6. Thus, the rejection of claim 12 as
unpatentable over Kawazumi and Reikerås is sustained.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 3, 4, and 12.
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

Klh