Lear Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 10, 2020

2019002494 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2020)

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.
14/560,487 12/04/2014 Michelle A. PERENY LEAR 54062 PUSP 1566
34007 7590 09/10/2020
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
BURGDORF, STEPHEN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2020 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 MICHELLE A. PERENY, SAMUEL R. HANLON,
MICHAEL R. POWELL, ASHFORD ALLEN GALBREATH,
RICHARD L. HARBAUGH, TERRY O’BANNON, GERALD PATRICK,
and KARL HENN

Appeal 2019-002494
Application 14/560,487
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9–14, 17, 18, 20, and 22–27,
which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. Appeal Br. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Lear Corporation, as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002494
Application 14/560,487
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the claimed subject matter as follows:
A seat assembly is provided with a seat cushion, a seat
back, and a head restraint. A plurality of sensors is operably
connected to at least one of the seat cushion and the seat back to
detect a seating position of an occupant. A media device is
provided. A controller is in electrical communication with the
plurality of sensors and the media device, and is configured to
receive data from the plurality sensors, compare the data to
determine if the occupant is seated evenly, and operate the media
device to inform the occupant of an uneven posture seating
position. A computer-program product is programmed for
automatically displaying a pressure distribution upon a seat
assembly. The displayed pressure distribution of the seat
assembly is from measured pressure values from a plurality of
sensors in a plurality of zones of the seat assembly.
Spec. Abstr.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A seat assembly comprising:
a seat cushion;
a seat back adapted to be pivotally mounted adjacent the
seat cushion;
a plurality of sensors operably connected to at least one of
the seat cushion and the seat back to detect a seating position of
an occupant;
at least one actuator operably connected to at least one of
the seat cushion and the seat back for adjustment of at least one
of a plurality of settings of the seat assembly:
a media device comprising an interactive user interface to
receive input from the occupant; and
a controller in electrical communication with the plurality
of sensors and the media device, the controller programmed to:
receive data from the plurality of sensors,
Appeal 2019-002494
Application 14/560,487
3
compare the data to determine if the occupant is
seated evenly,
operate the media device to inform the occupant of
an uneven posture seating position,
adjust the at least one actuator to balance an
occupant posture seating position in response to a manual
input from the interactive user interface,
receive input indicative of occupant anthropometry
data,
select a predetermined data range associated with
the input indicative of occupant anthropometry data,
adjust at least one of the plurality of settings of the
seat assembly to a predetermined setting based on the
selected predetermined data range,
receive data from the plurality of sensors after
adjusting the at least one of the plurality of settings of the
seat assembly to the predetermined setting,
operate the media device to inform the occupant of
the adjusted seating position to the at least one of the
plurality of settings to the predetermined setting,
compare the data to determine if the occupant is
seated evenly after adjusting the at least one of the
plurality of settings of the seat assembly to the
predetermined setting,
operate the media device to inform the occupant of
another uneven posture seating position,
readjust the at least one actuator to balance an
occupant posture seating position in response to a manual
input from the interactive user interface;
wherein the plurality of sensors comprises:
at least one left side sensor, and
at least one right side sensor; and
wherein the media device comprises a display.
Appeal 2019-002494
Application 14/560,487
4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Caruso US 10,413,084 B1 Sept. 17, 2019
Tan US 2002/0167486 A1 Nov. 14, 2002
Gleckler US 2009/0058661 A1 Mar. 5, 2009
Shalaby US 2013/0313871 A1 Nov. 28, 2013
Baudu US 2015/0084985 A1 Mar. 26, 2015
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9–12, 23, and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gleckler, Caruso, and Baudu. Final
Act. 2–13.
2. Claims 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gleckler, Caruso, Baudu, and Tan. Final Act. 13–14.
3. Claims 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tan, Caruso, and Baudu. Final Act.
15–27.
4. Claims 24–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gleckler, Caruso, Baudu, and Shalaby. Final Act. 28–33.
OPINION
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a “controller programmed to: receive
data from the plurality of sensors, compare the data to determine if the
occupant is seated evenly, . . . adjust the at least one actuator to balance an
occupant posture seating position in response to a manual input from the
interactive user interface, . . . operate the media device to inform the
occupant of another uneven posture seating position, [and] readjust the at
least one actuator to balance an occupant posture seating position in
Appeal 2019-002494
Application 14/560,487
5
response to a manual input from the interactive user interface.” The
Examiner finds Gleckler teaches the collection and communication of sensor
data that is used to determine if the occupant is seated evenly (Final Act. 4
(citing Gleckler ¶¶ 9, 36, 38, 39)) and relies on Caruso as teaching sensors
for monitoring user position and posture, and actuators for manual or
automatic adjustment and readjustment of the seat in response to occupant’s
shift in position (Final Act. 7 (citing Caruso 4:13–56, 6:9–22, 12:35–53)).
Appellant argues that while Caruso discloses automatically changing
the position, shape, or firmness of a support surface in response to shifting
weight, this disclosure does not teach the limitations requiring “adjust to
balance, compare, and readjust to balance.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues
that combining Caruso’s teachings with Gleckler and Baudu does not cure
the deficiencies of Caruso because “[i]n Gleckler, the occupant performs the
adjustment” and because “Baudu readjusts based on occupant morphological
data, not seating position.” Appeal Br. 9–10.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Gleckler discloses an
array of sensors connected with a seat that provides an output to a user of the
user’s posture in the seat, including “correct posture, hunch, slumping,
leaning forward, leaning left or right, diagonal left or right, and slouching.”
Gleckler ¶¶ 5, 7, 9. Caruso discloses a “system of controlling various
actuators associated with human support surfaces” such as chairs or seats.
Caruso Abstr. In Caruso, “[t]he actuators are capable of altering contour
and/or firmness, of a support surface, they may be vibrational or
heating/cooling in nature, and they may also alter the overall relative
position of a support surface to another support surface, and/or to the ground
plane.” Caruso Abstr., 8:42–45. Caruso further teaches that the position,
Appeal 2019-002494
Application 14/560,487
6
shape, firmness of the seat can change in response to the shifting weight of
the user. Caruso 12:49–57. Finally, Caruso teaches that the user can adjust
and readjust the seat (and various zones in the seat) to an appropriate
comfort level, or that these comfort levels may be preset and stored so that
the adjustment can happen automatically. Caruso 6:11–39.
We find the combination of teachings of Gleckler and Caruso teaches
the disputed limitations. Gleckler’s teaching of sensors that can determine
whether the user is leaning forward or leaning left or right teaches
“compar[ing] the data to determine if the occupant is seated evenly.”
Caruso’s teaching of actuators that adjust the user’s seat and seating position
based on shifting weight and that allow the user to readjust these positions,
combined with Gleckler’s disclosure, teaches “adjust[ing] the at least one
actuator to balance an occupant posture seating position” and “readjust[ing]
the at least one actuator to balance an occupant posture seating position.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 5–7, 9–14,
17, 18, 20, and 22–27, which depend from claim 1 and for which Appellant
does not make additional arguments for separate patentability. See Appeal
Br. 10.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 6,
9–12, 23,
27
103(a) Gleckler, Caruso,
Baudu
1, 3, 5, 6,
9–12, 23,
27

Appeal 2019-002494
Application 14/560,487
7
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7 103(a) Gleckler, Caruso,
Baudu, Tan
7
13, 14, 17,
18, 20, 22
103(a) Tan, Caruso, Baudu 13, 14,
17, 18,
20, 22

24–26 103(a) Gleckler, Caruso,
Baudu, Shalaby
24–26
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 5–7,
9–14, 17,
18, 20,
22–27

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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) (2017).
AFFIRMED