12054604 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Brunner et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 25, 2013

12054604 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013)

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. 12/054,604 03/25/2008 Stefan Brunner LEAR43196PUSA 6367 34007 7590 09/25/2013 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION 1000 TOWN CENTER TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 EXAMINER BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3636 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STEFAN BRUNNER, MARKUS KOIDL, and TOBIAS BOKELMANN ____________________ Appeal 2011-011869 Application 12/054,604 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011869 Application 12/054,604 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 13, and 15-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A vehicle seat assembly for supporting an occupant, the assembly comprising: a seat bottom; a seat back connected to the seat bottom having a frame including an upper frame member; a reclining mechanism configured to adjustably position the seat back relative to the seat bottom; a release mechanism configured to releasably lock the reclining mechanism in at least one locked and unlocked position, the release mechanism including a locking member and a cable; and a head restraint assembly adjustably connected to the seat back, the head restraint assembly including a headrest, one or more guides connected to and cooperating with the headrest and the seat back, at least one of the one or more guides including a plurality of notches formed on the guide to position the headrest adjacent an occupant's head and for adjusting the position of the headrest relative to the seat back, wherein when the reclining mechanism is in an locked position, the locking member is engaged with at least one of the of notches, and when the release mechanism is actuated, the cable cooperates with the locking member so that the Appeal 2011-011869 Application 12/054,604 3 locking member is disengaged with the notch, the reclining mechanism is thereby unlocked such that the seat back may be positioned relative to the seat bottom, and the head restraint may be adjusted relative to the seat bottom. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sinnhuber DE 10104386 A1 July 25, 2002 REJECTION Appellants seek our review of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 13, and 15-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sinnhuber. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Sinnhuber discloses a seat assembly meeting the limitations “at least one of the one or more guides including a plurality of notches formed on the guide” and “the cable cooperates with the locking member so that the locking member is disengaged with the notch,” as recited in each of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner cites Sinnhuber’s Figure 8 as disclosing the former limitation. Id. at 4. Appellants argue that Sinnhuber does not disclose both of the above- noted claim limitations in the same assembly. App. Br. 7-9. Appellants argue that Sinnhuber does not disclose that the embodiment of Figure 8 has a configuration in which “the cable cooperates with the locking member so that the locking member is disengaged with the notch.” Id. at 8. Appellants argue that the Examiner relies on a different embodiment, specifically the Appeal 2011-011869 Application 12/054,604 4 embodiment of Figures 2-3, as meeting this limitation. Id. Sinnhuber’s embodiment of Figures 2 and 3 does not anticipate the claims because it does not meet the claim limitation “at least one of the one or more guides including a plurality of notches formed on the guide,” Appellants argue. Id. In response, the Examiner asserts that “[c]learly [Sinnhuber] discloses that the supports (26), have notches formed thereon to cooperate with a locking member (66) as described in and analogous to the function of the embodiments as described in Figs 4 and 5.” Ans. 5 (citing “paragraph 5 lines 1-2”). The Examiner adds that “so far as claimed in claims 1, 9 and 17, the locking member (66) ‘cooperates’ with the cable (24) so that the locking member disengages with the plurality of notches (see paragraph 3 English translation of [Sinnhuber]).” Id. The Examiner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Sinnhuber discloses using both of the disputed claim limitations in the same assembly. The Examiner’s sole reliance on the Figure 8 embodiment of Sinnhuber as meeting the claim limitation “at least one of the one or more guides including a plurality of notches formed on the guide” reduces the dispute to a question of whether this embodiment also meets the claim limitation “the cable cooperates with the locking member so that the locking member is disengaged with the notch.” See Ans. 4. The Examiner’s contention that Sinnhuber’s different embodiments function in an “analogous” manner does not convince us that the Figure 8 embodiment meets the latter claim limitation; assemblies functioning in an analogous manner could differ significantly in the details of how they function. See id. at 5. Nor does the Examiner’s cursory assertion citing “paragraph 3 English translation of [Sinnhuber]” illuminate any clear reason to believe that Appeal 2011-011869 Application 12/054,604 5 Sinnhuber’s Figure 8 embodiment meets the latter limitation. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, or the rejection of dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 18-24. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 13, and 15-24. REVERSED hh