Ex Parte DeFranks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2017

13008720 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2017)

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.
13/008,720 01/18/2011 Michael S. DeFranks SMCY-136-102
(SSB0049USP)
9311
23413 7590 07/28/2017
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P
EXAMINER
20 Church Street CONLEY, FREDRICK C
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL S. DeFRANKS and JEREMY B. LYNN
Appeal 2016-006966
Application 13/008,720
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1—14 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a “mattress comprising asymmetrical coil
springs with spring rates that provide comfort to users with different
weights.” Abstract.
Appeal 2016-006966
Application 13/008,720
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A coil spring for cushion support, comprising:
an upper conical section having at least four active convolutions; and
a lower, substantially cylindrical section disposed below the upper
section having at least four active convolutions, wherein the upper conical
section and the lower substantially cylindrical section each have a constant
pitch;
wherein in response to a load of an individual, the upper conical
section of the coil spring is configured to compress with a first substantially
constant spring rate for a substantial part of compression and the lower
substantially cylindrical section of the coil spring is configured to compress
with a second substantially constant spring rate, wherein the coil spring is
configured to compress with the first substantially constant spring rate
for a longer range of amount of applied load relative to compression with
the second substantially constant spring rate;
wherein the upper conical section has a smaller height than the lower
substantially cylindrical section; and
wherein the second substantially constant spring rate is higher than the
first substantially constant spring rate.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Barman (US Patent Application Publication
2006/0042016 Al; published March 2, 2006) and Gladney (US Patent
7,168,117 B2; issued January 30, 2007). Final Rejection 2—6.
CONTENTIONS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 20, 2015), the Final Rejection
2
Appeal 2016-006966
Application 13/008,720
(mailed October 28, 2014) and the Answer (mailed September 2, 2015) for
the respective details.
Appellants argue, “[f]irst, there is no common sense reason for one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Barman to provide an asymmetric spring
coil with more than 4 convolutions in each of the upper and lower sections
of a coil” and “[njowhere is there any disclosure or even suggestion in
Barman of an asymmetric coil spring including upper and lower sections
having at least four active convolutions in each section, which would mean
at least 8 active convolutions for the coil spring in its entirety.” Appeal
Brief 6—7. Appellants further argue, “[i]t is not a ‘mere’ duplication of
parts[,] but rather a significant change that will definitely change the
performance of the coil spring” and “[b]ecause Barman discloses and
suggests spring coils having a much smaller number of active convolutions
as evidenced by its examples, any modification to Barman would be a
substantial modification.” Appeal Brief 8.
Appellants contend Gladney fails to address Barman’s deficiencies
because “[t]he convolutions in Gladney’s coil may have a constant pitch[,]
but the spring coil itself clearly does not have Appellants’ featured upper
and lower cylindrical section, wherein each section includes at least 4 active
convolutions.” Appeal Brief 9.
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that modifying Barman’s spring to include
four convolutions in each section and changing the pitch of the various
sections of the spring would significantly impact the functionality of
Barman’s spring. As Appellants contend, “one of skill in the art would
3
Appeal 2016-006966
Application 13/008,720
expect markedly different behavior from a cylindrical symmetrical coil
having three active convolutions when compared to an asymmetrical coil
having 8 or more active convolutions in total[,] never mind a spring coil that
further has a conical upper section and a cylindrical lower section, wherein
each section has at least 4 active convolutions.” Appeal Brief 9.
The Examiner reasons, though, “Appellants] ha[ve] done nothing
more than apply recognized engineering principles to the configuration of a
coil spring which is not considered patentably distinct.” Answer 9. We
agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect different spring
behavior once the modifications to Barman has been made, but one of
ordinary skill would not have been surprised by the results of the
modifications. Appellants’ do not provide evidence of unexpected results
based upon the claimed spring configuration. The invention, instead,
exhibits behavior that one of ordinary skill art would have expected when
manipulating spring parameters according to art recognized principles.1
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and do not find
1 Appellants bear the burden of showing unexpected results. In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080
(CCPA 1972). To establish unexpected results, the claimed subject matter
must be compared with the closest prior art. In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “It is well settled that unexpected
results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or
conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice.” In re Soni,
54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699,
705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). A showing of “unexpected results” requires that “the
claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have found surprising or
unexpected.” Soni, 54 F.3d at 750.
4
Appeal 2016-006966
Application 13/008,720
Appellants’ arguments persuasive.2 We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, as well as, dependent claims 2—13,
not separately argued.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—14 is affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
2 “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
5