Ex Parte Adams

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2007

10393757 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTINA L. ADAMS
____________

Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: September 21, 2007
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and RICHARD M.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claim 33. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Examiner has withdrawn the
rejection of claims 1 and 34. (Answer 3.) Throughout this decision, we
refer to the Amended Brief received May 5, 2006 as the Brief (Br.).
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

Claim 33 is reproduced below:
33. A wheelchair seat comprising a pair of rods adapted to be rigidly
fixed to and aligned in a longitudinal direction relative to a frame of the
wheelchair, a lateral array of spaced apart substantially inelastic straps
extending between and engaged on said rods and a longitudinal array of
spaced apart substantially inelastic straps, each said strap of said longitudinal
array being attached at one end thereof to a forwardmost and at another
end thereof to a rearwardmost of said straps of said lateral array, and said
longitudinal array traversing said lateral array of spaced apart straps to
define a matrix of straps.

Cited References:
Adler US 2,934,134 Apr. 26, 1960
Ingerson US 3,887,228 Jun. 3, 1975

Grounds of Rejection:
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ingerson and Adler.

DISCUSSION
Background:
According to the Specification, an object of the invention is to provide
a wheel chair seat that helps prevent pressure sores from occurring.
(Specification 3.) An additional object is stated to be to provide a
wheelchair that is easily adjusted in the event of a change of occupants. (Id.)
The Specification states that these objects are attained by a wheelchair
seat comprising a pair of rods adapted to be rigidly fixed to and aligned in a
longitudinal direction relative to a frame of the wheelchair, a lateral array of
spaced apart substantially inelastic straps extending between and engaged on
2
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

said rods and a longitudinal array of spaced apart substantially inelastic
straps, each said strap of said longitudinal array being attached at one end
thereof to a forwardmost and at another end thereof to a rearwardmost of
said straps of said lateral array, and said longitudinal array traversing said
lateral array of spaced apart straps to define a matrix of straps.

Claim Interpretation:
Claim 33 is drawn to a wheelchair seat. The seat comprises
a pair of rods and a matrix of substantially inelastic straps. The rods are
adapted to be rigidly fixed to and aligned in a longitudinal direction relative
to a frame of the wheelchair. The matrix of substantially inelastic straps is
defined by (1) a lateral array of spaced apart straps and (2) a longitudinal
array of spaced apart straps. Each of the lateral straps extends between and
is engaged on the rods. One end of each longitudinal strap is attached to the
forward most lateral strap and the other end of each longitudinal strap is
attached to the rearward most lateral strap.

Findings of Fact (FF):
1. Ingerson teaches a wheelchair that comprises a seat (16) (Ingerson,
col. 1, l. 1; col. 2, ll. 27-28; Fig. 1; and Answer 4).
2. Ingerson teaches that the chair “comprises generally a conventional
light-weight foldable chair 12 composed of light-weight metal and
fabric material (generally referred to as a ‘lawn chair’)” (Ingerson,
col. 2, ll. 23-26).
3. The seat portion of Ingerson’s wheelchair comprises a pair of rods
that are adapted to be rigidly fixed to and aligned in a longitudinal
3
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

direction relative to a frame of the wheelchair (Ingerson, Fig. 1;
Answer 4).
4. The seat portion of Ingerson’s wheelchair comprises an interwoven
flexible web which is secured to the frame to form a seat (Ingerson,
Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 53-55).
5. The frame of Ingerson’s wheelchair “is covered with fabric bands,
such as the band 69, in a woven arrangement in a similar manner to
the seat 16 and the back 18” (Ingerson, col. 3, ll. 13-16).
6. Ingerson does not teach a wheelchair seat wherein one end of each
longitudinal strap is attached at to the forward most lateral strap and
the other end of each longitudinal strap is attached to the rearward
most lateral strap (Answer 4).
7. Adler teaches “a metal chair particularly adapted for outdoor use,”
e.g., a lawn chair (Adler, col. 1, ll. 65-66).
8. Adler teaches that in many instances the seat and back portions of
open frame chairs are made of interlaced woven webs with the ends of
each web fastened to the chair frame (Adler, col. 1, ll. 1-5).
9. Adler teaches that while web material is available on the open market,
the average person is unable to repair a damaged chair because of a
lack of necessary tools or inability to perform the amount of labor
involved in interlacing and fastening the ends of each web to the chair
frame, particularly a metal chair (Adler, col. ll. 27-32).
10. Two objectives of Adler’s invention are to (1) provide a fabric chair
seat and chair back which may be easily attached to a chair frame
without the use of tools and (2) maintain the interlaced webs in a
4
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

definite and predetermined spaced relation as a unit during application
to the frame” (Adler, col. 1, ll. 40-42).
11. Adler’s chair has a generally rectangular tubular metal seat frame and
a fabric seat portion that extends across the top of the frame (Adler,
col. 1, ll. 66-70).
12. Adler teaches that the fabric portion “is made of woven tape or web
material . . . which may be a natural as cotton or a synthetic material
as for example ‘Saran’” (Adler, col. 2, ll. 3-6).
13. With reference to Fig. 5, Adler teaches that “web lengths 14 are
interlaced with the web lengths 15 so as to position the webs closely
adjacent to each other and thus provide a central interlaced area as at
16” (Adler, col. 2, ll. 6-9). For clarity, Adler’s Fig. 5 is reproduced
below:

14. Adler teaches that the seat portion of the chair is tied to the frame with
“tie cords” attached to the ends of the web lengths (Adler, col. 2, ll.
37-55).
5
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

15. Appellant’s Specification teaches that the lateral straps are extended
over, along side of and below the rods and buckle at a point under and
between the rods (Specification 4: 14-16).
16. Adler teaches that the back portion of the chair is similar to the seat
portion “with the exception that it is in the nature of a band made of
interlaced lengths of webs 34 and 35” (Adler, col. 2, ll. 60-62).
17. Adler teaches that web lengths (35) “terminate at the outer edge of the
outer webs 34 as shown in Figures 7 and 8 and are there sewed to
each other by a line of stitches 37” (Adler, col. 2, ll. 67-70). For
clarity, Adler’s Figs. 7 and 8 are reproduced below:

Obviousness:
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ingerson and Adler (Answer 4). Claim 33 is drawn to a wheelchair seat.
Appellant does not dispute that Ingerson teaches a wheelchair that comprises
a seat (FF 1). The chair component of Ingerson’s wheelchair resembles a
lawn chair (FF 2). Similarly, Adler teaches a chair adapted for outdoor use,
e.g., a lawn chair (FF 7).
Appellant does not dispute that Ingerson’s seat comprises a pair of
rods rigidly fixed to and aligned in a longitudinal direction relative to a
frame of the wheelchair, and a matrix of straps (FF 3-5). Similarly, the seat
6
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

of Adler’s chair comprises a pair of rods and a matrix of straps (FF 11-13).
In addition, Adler teaches a chair back portion that is similar to the seat
portion (FF 16).
Adler teaches that the web material or straps can be of a natural cotton
or synthetic material such as Saran (FF 12). The Examiner finds, and
Appellant does not dispute, that both Saran and natural cotton are inelastic
materials (Answer 5). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
assertion that the web material or straps taught by Ingerson and Adler are not
substantially inelastic materials, simply because neither reference
characterized them as such (Br. 5).
Appellant does not dispute that Ingerson teaches a lateral array of
spaced apart straps that extend between and are engaged on the rods (FF 4).
There is no dispute on this record that Ingerson does not teach a
wheelchair seat wherein one end of each longitudinal strap is attached to the
forward most lateral strap and the other end of each longitudinal strap is
attached to the rearward most lateral strap as is required by Appellant’s
claimed invention.
Adler does, however, teach a chair “back” portion that “is similar to
the seat portion with the exception that it is in the nature of a band made of
interlaced lengths of webs 34 (lateral straps) and 35 (longitudinal straps)”
wherein the longitudinal straps terminate at and are sewed to the outer edge
of the forward most and rearward most lateral straps (FF 16-17).
Based on the combined teachings of Ingerson and Adler the Examiner
concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to attach the longitudinal straps to the front and rear straps of the lateral
7
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

array, as taught by Adler, in order to make the seat simpler to install”
(Answer 4).
In response, Appellant asserts that Adler teaches “all of the vertical
webs are commonly stitched at their tops and bottoms to the upper and lower
horizontal webs of the backrest” (Br. 6). According to Appellant, “the
teachings of Adler with respect to the backrest are not applied to or
suggested for the seat and that the claims at issue should therefore be
allowed” (id.).

Issue:
There is no dispute on this record that Ingerson’s wheelchair seat
could be modified by the seat taught by Adler. Accordingly, the issue before
us on appeal distills down to whether it would have been prima facie
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time Appellant’s
invention was made to modify Adler’s seat as it is applied to Ingerson’s
wheelchair seat, or any other prior art wheelchair seat, so that one end of
each longitudinal strap is attached to the forward most lateral strap and the
other end of each longitudinal strap is attached to the rearward most lateral
strap as suggested for the back portion of Adler’s chair.

Analysis:
As set forth by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007),
In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed
purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective
reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
8
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

invalid under § 103. One of the ways in which a patent’s
subject mater can be proved obvious is by noting that there
existed at the time of invention a known problem for which
there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
claims.

Adler teaches that while web material is available on the open market,
the average person is unable to repair a damaged chair because of a lack of
necessary tools or inability to perform the amount of labor involved in
interlacing and fastening the ends of each web to the chair frame,
particularly a metal chair (FF 9). Thus, the prior art recognized that there
was a need to develop chairs wherein the seats and backs could be easily
replaced when damaged. Adler satisfied this need by developing a chair seat
that could be easily attached to a chair frame without the use of tools (FF
10). More specifically, Adler’s seat is attached to the chair frame with tie
cords (FF 14). For her part, Appellant makes use of buckles, instead of tie
cords, to attach the seat to the chair frame (FF 15).
Adler, however, does not stop there. Adler recognized the need to
maintain the interlaced webs in a definite and predetermined spaced
relationship during application to the frame (FF 10). Clearly, by stitching
the ends of the longitudinal strap to the forward most and rearward most
lateral strap the interlaced webs will be maintained in a definite and
predetermined spaced relationship during application to the frame. Stated
differently, the seat will be “simpler to install” (Answer 4).
As admitted by Appellant, the seat of a “typical” prior art wheelchair
is slung across spaced apart parallel longitudinal rods (Specification: 9: 2-
12; Figs. 1 and 2). As shown in the drawings of the admitted prior art
(Specification: Fig. 1), there are no lateral rods in the seat frame – apparently
9
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

to enable the wheelchair to be folded up for ease of transport (Specification
2: 27-28). Thus, the prior art seat is attached to the seat frame only through
the pair of longitudinal rods.
Adler teaches that when a lower cross bar (i.e., the second lateral rod)
is not present – as is the case for the typical prior art wheelchair seat – the
longitudinal straps are sewn to the outer edges of the lateral array (FF 16,
17) as this would be the only way to attach them. Thus, to accommodate the
typical prior art wheelchair seat and to make it “simpler to install,” the
skilled worker would have been prompted to have utilized Adler’s chair
back (FF 16) in place of the prior art sling seat – since the typical wheelchair
seat, like Adler’s chair back – does not have a pair of lateral rods.
Therefore, the longitudinal straps must be secured to the seat webbing itself,
e.g., by sewing the straps to the lateral array as required by claim 1.
No doubt, neither Ingerson nor Adler expressly teach this
modification to the seat portion of the chair. However, “an obviousness
analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words
teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance
of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR, 127 S.
Ct. 1731-1732, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this
leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product [is] not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that
instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might
show that it was obvious under § 103.”

KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
10
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

On this record, Adler provides this solution for the back portion of the
chair comprising a pair of longitudinal, but not a pair of lateral bars.
Therefore, one setting out to develop a chair seat that could be easily
attached to a chair frame without the use of tools while maintaining the
interlaced webs in a definite and predetermined spaced relationship during
application of the seat to the frame would have realized that Adler already
provided the solution to both of these problems, albeit for the back portion
of a chair. The only thing left to do was to apply the solution Adler
developed for the back portion of a chair to the seat portion. See KSR, 127
S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (It is proper to “take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
assertion that Adler’s teaching of a matrix of straps wherein one end of each
longitudinal strap is attached to the forward most lateral strap and the other
end of each longitudinal strap is attached to the rearward most lateral strap is
exclusively restricted to an application as a back portion of a chair. Absent
evidence to the contrary, of which there is none, it is our opinion that a
person of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized that the
configuration set forth by Adler for a back portion of a chair could apply
equally to the seat portion of a chair, especially where the seat is mounted
between two longitudinal rods.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that
claim 33 is prima facie obvious over the combined teachings of Ingerson and
Adler. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ingerson and Adler.
11
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

OTHER ISSUES
In the Answer, the Examiner stated that the rejection of claims 1 and
34 was withdrawn (Answer 3). The reason for withdrawing the rejection is
not clear on the record before us. Upon return of this application to the
Technology Center, we suggest that the Examiner reconsider the
patentability of claims 1 and 34 in view of the following comments:
Claim 1 recites that the seat comprises a “means for independently
adjusting a length of at least one of said straps of said lateral array to alter a
pressure pattern imposed on said arrays by an occupant of the chair.” Claim
34 has similar language. We interpret “alter a pressure pattern imposed on
said arrays by an occupant of the chair” to be an intended use of the claimed
“means … for adjusting length.” An intended use that merely states the
purpose of the claimed subject matter, without adding additional structure to
it, is generally not treating as limiting the scope of the claim. See
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d
1339, 1345, 65 USPQ2d 1961, 1964-65 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Rowe v. Dror, 112
F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we
suggest that the Examiner consider whether the tie cords of Adler’s seat (FF
14) would meet the claimed limitation of a “means . . . for adjusting length.”
In other words, when the ends of a single web strap are knotted together by a
tie cord as taught by Adler – thereby changing the tautness (and length?) of
the individual strap as it is strung across the chair – does this step cover
“adjusting [strap] length as required by claims 1 and 34?

12
Appeal 2007-1013
Application 10/393,757

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F,R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).

AFFIRMED

lbg

FRANK J CATALANO
FRANK J CATALANO, P.C.
100 WEST 5TH ST., 10TH FLOOR
TULSA OK 74103-4990

13