Ex Parte DeLong et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 2010

10710711 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AARON DELONG, FRANK L. VIOLET, GERALD KRAUSE,
and JOHN APPLIN
____________

Appeal 2009-003759
Application 10/710,711
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: March 18, 2010
____________

Before MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-003759
Application 10/710,711

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Aaron DeLong et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 8-15. Appellants canceled claims 1-7
and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2006).
The Invention
The claimed invention is to consoles for automotive interiors. Spec.,
para [0001].
Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
8. A multipurpose console for use in a vehicle,
comprising:
a housing comprising:
a power contact adapted to cooperate with a power
source of the vehicle to provide power to the console;
a latching mechanism, the latching mechanism
being fixedly secured to a lower surface of the housing and
configured to releasably engage a mounting mechanism of the
vehicle so that the housing may be fastened thereto and
removed therefrom; and
a transport device configured to removably
connect with the housing to transport the housing when the
housing is removed from the vehicle.

The Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Johnson US 3,827,772 Aug. 6, 1974
Gaus US 4,545,211 Oct. 8, 1985
Soeters US 5,106,143 Apr. 21, 1992
Larsen US 2003/0122392 A1 Jul. 3, 2003
Grabowski US 6,811,197 B1 Nov. 2, 2004

Appeal 2009-003759
Application 10/710,711

3
The Rejections
The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
(A) Claims 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Soeters in view of Larsen.
(B) Claims 9 and 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Soeters in view of Larsen and further in view of Johnson.
(C) Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Soeters in view of Larsen and further in view of
Grabowski.
(D) Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Soeters in view of Larsen and further in of Gaus and
Johnson.

Contentions
Appellants contend that Soeters fails to disclose a latching mechanism
and the transport device as set forth in claim 8. Appellants contend that the
latching mechanism identified by the Examiner is not fixedly secured to a
lower surface of the console because Soeters fails to have a lower surface.
Appellants contend that because the console of Soeters is not intended to be
used in other places beside the vehicle, a transport device is not required.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s utilization of Larsen to teach a
transport device is improper because the totes are not consoles, but instead

1 While the statement of the ground of rejection omits listing claim 10, the
Examiner provides a statement as to how the combination renders obvious
claim 10. See Ans. 5. Appellants argue for patentability of claim 10. App.
Br. 6. Therefore, claim 10 will be considered in this appeal as having been
rejected over Soeters in view of Larsen and Johnson.
Appeal 2009-003759
Application 10/710,711

4
components of a console. As such, according to Appellants, Larsen’s
teachings would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Soeters
into a modular system having a tote that lifts away from a base coupled to
the floor of the vehicle. Appellants contend that Johnson appears to teach
that wires extend through the housing and the speaker assembly such that
mating components are not required. As such, according to Appellants,
incorporating Johnson’s teachings would not allow the console to be
removed from the vehicle.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

OPINION
Rejection (A) – Obviousness based on Soeters and Larsen
Appellants’ contention that Soeters fails to have its latching
mechanism “fixedly secured to a lower surface of the housing” as called for
in claim 8 is unconvincing to show the Examiner erred in concluding that
claim 8 is rendered obvious in view of the combined teachings of Soeters
and Larsen. While an outer molded integral shell 28 forms the console 20 of
Soeters, see Figure 1 and col. 2, ll. 10-16, a generally U-shaped crossbeam
52 connects the lower portions of the sides 22 in a conventional manner, col.
3, ll. 8-11. This U-shaped crossbeam 52 satisfies the claimed lower surface
as set forth in the claim. As depicted in Figure 2 of Soeters, the structure 54,
which Appellants have not contested as failing to satisfy the claimed
latching mechanism, is fixedly secured to the lower left portion of U-shaped
Appeal 2009-003759
Application 10/710,711

5
crossbeam 52. As such, Soeters discloses a latching mechanism being
fixedly secured to a lower surface of a housing as called for in claim 8.
Appellants’ contention that combining Larsen’s teaching of a strap
with Soeters’ console would merely lead to providing the console of Soeters
with a tote that lifts away from a base coupled to the floor of a vehicle, is
unconvincing to show that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 8 is
rendered obvious in view of the combined teachings of Soeters and Larsen.
While Larsen does explicitly teach a strap connected to a tote to lift the tote
from the center console of a vehicle, “[c]ommon sense teaches, however,
that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Soeters’ console is
designed to snap into the floor of the vehicle. See, e.g., Abstract. Soeters
suggests the console is removable, see, e.g., Abstract, but does not provide
an explicit reason for the removability. Passim. However, a person having
ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the removability of the console in
order to facilitate repair of the vehicle in case something became inoperative
within the vehicle. Providing the strapping mechanism as taught Larsen to
the center console of Soeters would permit a person having ordinary skill in
the art to lift the console vertically upon release of the console from the
brackets and carry the console to a location without marring any of the
exterior surfaces of the console which could have easily marred material, for
example, fine crafted leather work.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim
8 as rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Soeters and Larsen.
Appellants do not separately argue claims 11 and 12. As such, claims 11
and 12 fall with claim 8.
Appeal 2009-003759
Application 10/710,711

6
Rejections (B-D) – Obviousness based on Soeters, Larsen, Johnson,
Grabowski, and Gaus
Appellants’ contentions are unconvincing to persuade us that the
Examiner erred in concluding that claims 9 and 10 are rendered obvious by
the combined teachings of Soeters, Larsen, and Johnson; claims 13 and 14
are rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Soeters, Larsen, and
Grabowski; and claim 15 is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of
Soeters, Larsen, Johnson, and Gaus. “[A] person of ordinary skill in the art
will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
Claims 9 and 10 recite that the latching mechanism includes power
and sound contacts adapted to cooperate with mating power and sound
contacts of the vehicle. Claims 13 and 14 recite a rechargeable battery,
power inverter, a power contact adapted to charge the battery, and a 110V
power outlet. Claim 15 adds to claim 8 a compartment with a cooling device
and an electronic device.
Soeters discloses that power contacts within the latching mechanism
and the power contacts on the console mate with the wire harness 19 of the
vehicle when the console bracket is snap-fitted and plugged into the bracket
located on the vehicle floor. Soeters, col. 3, ll. 24-30. As such, providing
sound contacts proximate to the existing power contacts of Soeters based on
the teachings of Johnson would be nothing more than taking an existing
device and improving upon that device with a similar device in the same
way, which involves nothing more than ordinary creativity well within the
technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
Appeal 2009-003759
Application 10/710,711

7
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill.”).
Similarly, providing the console disclosed in Soeters with the
components recited in claims 13-15 based on the teachings of Johnson,
Grabowski, and Gaus would be nothing more than taking existing devices
and improving upon a device that is ready for improvement and would have
been well within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art,
because the product of combining the teachings of Johnson, Grabowski, and
Gaus to the console disclosed in Soeters is not of innovation but of ordinary
skill and common sense.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner did not err in concluding that
claims 9 and 10 are rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Soeters,
Larsen, and Johnson; claims 13 and 14 are rendered obvious by the
combined teachings of Soeters, Larsen, and Grabowski, and claim 15 is
rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Soeters, Larsen, Johnson,
and Gaus.

CONCLUSION
Appellants’ remaining arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief
have been considered, but do not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did
not err in concluding that the claimed subject matter is obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8-15 as obvious is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-003759
Application 10/710,711

8
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

mls

WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202