Ex Parte Dong et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 11, 2009

10973947 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte HANH DONG, JOHN LOFY, and DAVID MARQUETTE
__________

Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947
Technology Center 3600
__________

Decided: August 11, 2009
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and MELANIE L.
McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims 11, 12, and
16-18, which are directed to a climate-controlled seat assembly. The
Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses a seat assembly that comprises a seat
portion, a backrest portion, an adjustable lumbar support device, and a
climate control apparatus (Spec. ¶ 0026). The climate control apparatus
includes a conduit extending through the adjustable lumbar support device
(id. at ¶ 0042).
Claims 11, 12, and 16-18 are on appeal. Claim 11 is representative
and reads as follows:
Claim 11: A climate controlled seat assembly, comprising:
a seat cushion having an outer surface comprising a front side for
supporting an occupant in a sitting position and a rear side, the rear side and
the front side generally facing in opposite directions;
a base member positioned on the rear side of the seat cushion;
an adjustable support device capable of moving a portion of the seat
cushion between at least a first position in which the portion of the seat
cushion is located a first distance from the base member and a second
position in which the portion of the seat cushion is located a second distance
from the base member, the second distance being greater than the first
distance;
a passage extending through the seat cushion, the passage
communicating with an opening on the rear side of the portion of the seat
cushion;
a conduit extending from the passage and through at least a portion of
the adjustable support device; and
a fluid system to supply or withdraw fluid from the passage, the fluid
system being positioned generally on a rear side of the adjustable support
device;
wherein the conduit includes a first end and a second end, the first end
of the conduit being coupled to an outlet port of the fluid system and the
fluid system is coupled to the base member.

2
Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947

The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
• claims 11, 12 and 16 in view of Eksin1 and Larsson;2 and
• claims 17 and 18 in view of Eksin, Larsson, and Suzuki.3
OBVIOUSNESS I
Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 11, 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Eksin and Larson. Claims 12 and 16 have not
been argued separately and therefore stand or fall with claim 11. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that Eksin discloses the climate controlled seat
assembly of claim 11 “except that the passage and adjustable support device
lacks a conduit extending therethrough” (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that
“Larsson shows a seat assembly similar to that of Eksin,” with “a fluid
system 26 positioned generally on a rear side of a support device 28, an air
passage 25, a flexible conduit 41 in fluid communication with the air
passage and extending through an opening … in the support device … [and]
a first end 42 of the conduit coupled to an outlet port/component of the fluid
system” (id. at 4).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
the seat assembly of Eksin to have the fluid system positioned on a rear side
of the adjustable support device, with a conduit running through the
adjustable support device to connect the fluid system and air passages,

1 Eksin et al., US 6,145,925, Nov. 14, 2000
2 Larsson, US 6,003,950, Dec. 21, 1999
3 Suzuki et al., US 6,062,641, May 16, 2000
3
Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947

because Larsson discloses “that the conduit and fluid system configuration
provides a tight wall in the channel preventing air from leaking through
pores in the cushion” (id. at 5).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited
references disclose or suggest a conduit extending from a passage and
through at least a portion of an adjustable support device (App. Br. 13) or a
fluid system positioned on a rear side of an adjustable support device (id. at
14).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that the cited references suggest a
seat assembly comprising a conduit extending from a passage and through at
least a portion of an adjustable support device, and a fluid system positioned
on a rear side of an adjustable support device?
Findings of Fact
1. Eksin discloses a ventilated backrest for vehicle seats (Eksin,
abstract).
2. Eksin discloses that a “known backrest for motor vehicle seats …
has a support part, the so-called lordosis support, which is constructed as a
flat curved section and, in an adaptation to the seat user’s spinal column, is
curved toward the front” (id. at col. 1, ll. 36-40).
3. Figure 2 of Eksin is shown below:
4
Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947

Figure 2 shows “a back view of the backrest” with the backrest wall
removed (id. at col. 2, ll. 49-51).
4. Eksin discloses that
a mechanical lordosis support 20, which can be adjusted for an
adaptation to the spinal column curvature of the seat user, is
fastened to the backrest frame 10. … The longitudinal struts 21,
22 which, on their front side facing the seat user, carry
transverse struts 23 for supporting the back, can be adjusted by
means of a mechanism which is not shown with respect to the
degree of their arching.
(Id. at col. 3, ll. 13-25.)
5. Eksin discloses that
the backrest cushion 11 is actively ventilated by means of a
ventilator or a fan 24. … The fan 24 is fastened largely
centrally in the cushion area on the lordosis support at low
vibrations such that it moves along without force in any
adjustment of the lordosis support 20. In the cushion layer 16
of the backrest cushion 11, an air duct 25 is constructed which
is aligned with the fan 24 and penetrates the cushion layer 16
from its rearward side facing the lordosis support 20 to the
5
Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947

ventilation layer 17. … [T]he fan 24 projects into the air duct
25 and, during the adjustment of the lordosis support 20 along
its whole adjusting range, remains within the air duct 25.
(Id. at col. 3, ll. 26-43.)
6. Larsson discloses a device for ventilating seats that has an air-
permeable covering portion that is applied over the filling and a suction
device that evacuates ventilating air (Larsson, abstract).
7. Figure 2 of Larsson is shown below:

Figure 2 shows “a cross-section of a portion of the backrest” of a vehicle
seat, including chair cushion 6 and filling 7 (id. at col. 3, ll. 25-30, 63-64).
8. Larsson discloses that “[f]or the ventilation of the chair, in case the
layer 10 consists of a tight material, it shall have a perforation on
approximately rectangular covering portions [14]. … [T]here is furthermore
on the underside of these covering portions a plate-formed insert 15 having
an air-permeable material 16.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 8-20.)
9. Larsson discloses that
6
Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947

there is a conducting connection, which according to the
drawing can consist of a channel 25 extending from the lower
layer of the insert to a suction device 26. This is preferably a
fan of radial type, attached … in the backrest against a bottom
plate 27 and a so-called pullmaflex wire-netting 28,
respectively, or other carrying means in the frame of the vehicle
chair.
(Id. at col. 4, ll. 32-39.)
10. Larsson discloses that “[t]o prevent air from leaking to the suction
device through pores in the filling material 7, the device in FIG. 2 … has a
bellows 41 of rubber or other elastic material which forms a tight wall in the
channel 25” (id. at col. 5, ll. 59-63).
Principles of Law
“[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of
elements of prior art is obvious,” the answer depends on “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007).
The obviousness analysis “can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at
418.
“In determining whether obviousness is established by combining the
teachings of the prior art, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotations
omitted).
7
Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947

Analysis
Claim 11 is directed to a climate-controlled seat assembly comprising,
among other things, a seat cushion, a base member on the rear side of the
seat cushion, an adjustable support device capable of moving a portion of the
seat cushion relative to the base member, a passage extending through the
seat cushion with an opening on the rear side, a conduit extending from the
passage and through a portion of the adjustable support device, and a fluid
system on a rear side of the adjustable support device and coupled to the
base member, to supply or withdraw fluid from the passage.
Eksin discloses a ventilated vehicle seat cushion having an adjustable
support device with an attached fluid system (i.e., a fan). Eksin also
discloses that the fluid system communicates with passageways in the
vehicle seat. Larsson discloses a ventilated vehicle seat that includes a fluid
system mounted on the rear of the vehicle seat and a conduit connecting the
fluid system to passageways in the vehicle seat, but does not include an
adjustable support device.
In view of these disclosures, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle seat ventilation system of
Eksin so that the fluid system (i.e., fan) is supported on the base of the seat
(i.e., the seat frame), and fluidly connected to the front side of the seat
cushion via a conduit through the adjustable support device, because Larsson
provides evidence that a rear-mounted fluid system was a known alternative
to Eksin’s system. Larsson’s rear-mounted fluid system includes a conduit
between the fluid system and passageways in the seat, which would
necessarily run through the adjustable support device of Eksin’s seat. Such a
8
Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947

combination is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that cited
references disclose or suggest a conduit extending from a passage and
through an adjustable support device (App. Br. 13) and a fluid system
positioned on a rear side of an adjustable support device (id. at 14).
These arguments are not persuasive. It is true that neither Eksin nor
Larsson expressly suggest the disputed limitations, because neither reference
discloses a seat that includes both an adjustable support device and a rear-
mounted fluid system. However, the prior art need not expressly suggest an
invention in order to have made it obvious. In accord with KSR, the test is
whether the claimed invention is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions. Here, a fluid system
mounted on the rear of a seat was known (Larsson), and a fluid system
providing fluid flow through an adjustable support device was also known
(Eksin). Based on the cited references, placing a fluid system on the rear of
a seat and to the rear of an adjustable support device, with a conduit running
through the adjustable support device, is a predictable use of the known
elements according to their established functions, and therefore obvious.
Conclusions of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the
cited references suggest a seat assembly comprising a conduit extending
from a passage and through at least a portion of an adjustable support device
and a fluid system positioned on a rear side of an adjustable support device.
9
Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947

OBVIOUSNESS II
The Examiner has rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious in view of Eksin, Larsson, and Suzuki. Claims 17 and 18
depend from independent claim 11. The Examiner finds that Eksin and
Larsson suggest the climate controlled seat assembly of claim 11, as
discussed above, and that Suzuki would have made obvious the additional
limitations of claims 17 and 18 (Ans. 5-6). We agree with the Examiner’s
reasoning and conclusion.
Appellants do not dispute that Suzuki would have suggested the
limitations added to claim 11 by claims 17 and 18, but contend that Suzuki
does not cure the deficiencies of Eksin and Larsson in suggesting the
invention of claim 11 (App. Br. 15).
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 11, 12, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE

10
Appeal 2009-007060
Application 10/973,947

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

AFFIRMED

Ssc:

KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
11