Ex Parte Estevenin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201713306851 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/306,851 11/29/2011 Jean-Claude Andre Estevenin 2903-001-03 8173 100822 7590 10/02/2017 T .aiinrhnaH Tntelleotnal Prnnertv Tno EXAMINER 914 164th St, SE, Ste. B12 #433 Mill Creek, WA 98012 BRINDLEY, TIMOTHY J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/02/2017 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): docket @ launchpadip. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEAN-CLAUDE ANDRE ESTEVENIN and PERRY G. ESTEVENIN Appeal 2016-007033 Application 13/306,851 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-007033 Application 13/306,851 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—4, 6—9, and 16—23. Claims 10-15 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claim 5 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an airplane passenger seat. Spec. (Title), Fig. 1. Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An airplane passenger seat, comprising: a non-articulated seat shell; a seat support configured to mount to a floor of an airplane fuselage; a forward support beam and a rear support beam mounted on the seat support, wherein the non-articulated seat shell, seat support, and the support beams are configured to withstand a 16G acceleration without detaching from the floor or collapsing; a pivot operatively coupled to the non- articulated seat shell and one of the support beams, and configured to allow rotation of the non-articulated seat shell relative to the forward support beam or the rear support beam; and at least one spring configured, when a person releases a recline control, to urge the non-articulated seat shell into an upright position. 2 Appeal 2016-007033 Application 13/306,851 Schmidhuber Luria Knaust May Kismarton Arata REFERENCES US 4,498,703 US 5,695,240 US 7,152,719 B2 US 2006/0103187 A1 US 2009/0084925 A1 US 2010/0314920 A1 Feb. 12, 1985 Dec. 9, 1997 Dec. 26, 2006 May 18,2006 Apr. 2, 2009 Dec. 16, 2010 REJECTIONS Claims 1—4, 9, 16, 17, and 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmidhuber and Kismarton. Non—Final Act. 2. Claims 1—4, 6, 9, 16, 17, and 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmidhuber, Kismarton, and Arata. Id. at 4. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmidhuber, Kismarton, Arata, and Knaust. Id. at 7. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmidhuber, Kismarton, Arata, and May. Id. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schmidhuber, Kismarton, Arata, and Luria. Id. at 8. ANALYSIS Claims 1—4, 9, 16, 17, and 21—23— Unpatentable over Schmidhuber and Kismarton Based on Appellants’ arguments (Br. 16—36), we will decide the appeal of claims 1—4, 9, 16, 17, 21, and 23 based on claim 1 alone, and address claim 22 separately below. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal 2016-007033 Application 13/306,851 Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Schmidhuber teaches all the limitations of claim 1 except that Schmidhuber does not teach withstanding a 16G acceleration and does not teach the claimed spring. Non—Final Act. 2—3 (citing Schmidhuber, Fig. 1). The Examiner asserts that Kismarton teaches an airplane seat configured to withstand a 16G acceleration without detaching from the airplane floor, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Schmidhuber’s airplane seat to be able to withstand a 16G acceleration “in order to insure safety of the seat during use.” Id. Appellants do not dispute either of these assertions. For the spring limitation, the Examiner asserts that Kismarton teaches a hydraulic actuator, similar to Schmidhuber’s, and that Kismarton also teaches that “traditional actuators contain a return spring to return the seatback to its upright/undeflected position.” Id. at 3 (citing Kismarton || 129-131). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the hydraulic actuator of Schmidhuber, to contain a return spring, as is commonly known in the art and discussed in Kismarton, in order to allow the seatback to return to its upright position without manual effort from the occupant.” Id. Appellants first contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Schmidhuber and Kismarton because Kismarton “teaches against” Schmidhuber’s “hinge” (which Appellants also refer to as a “mechanical pivot,”) as well as the use of a spring. Br. 17, 19-21. In support of this argument, Appellants point to Kismarton’s teaching of a “flexible and resilient hinge” between the seat pan and seat back, which could replace both “the return spring contained in traditional actuators” and 4 Appeal 2016-007033 Application 13/306,851 “a distinct hinge assembly or any rotating machinery at the junction” of the seat pan and seat back, resulting in a “simpler design and less overall weight.” Id. at 21 (citing Kismarton 1131). The Examiner counters that the proposed combination “does not require all of the elements of Kismarton to be combined with Schmidhuber,” and Appellants do not explain how Schmidhuber’s hinge “relates to the use of a traditional actuator with a return spring.” Ans. 3. We agree with the Examiner. As our reviewing court has held, “it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Rather, the relevant inquiry is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner does not propose combining Kismarton’s “flexible, resilient hinge” with Schmidhuber’s airplane seat; instead, the Examiner proposes adding a return spring used in a traditional actuator to assist a passenger in returning a seatback to its upright position. Ans. 4. The Examiner thus proposes the combination of known features according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415—16 (2007) (The “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Moreover, Appellants have not provided any reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art could not have combined Kismarton’s teaching of a hydraulic actuator with return spring without, e.g., modifying Schmidhuber’s hinge. 5 Appeal 2016-007033 Application 13/306,851 Appellants also argue that adding a return spring to Schmidhuber’s hydraulic actuator would “change the principle of operation” of Schmidhuber. Br. 20. According to Appellants, Schmidhuber uses “the shifting weight of the occupant” to rotate the seat back to its upright position, “without the added cost, weight, and complexity” of an additional spring. Id. The Examiner disputes that having the occupant supply the force necessary to move the seatback from a reclined to an upright position is Schmidhuber’s principle of operation; instead, according to the Examiner, Schmidhuber teaches a solution to the problem of an airplane seat backrest only being able to be locked in two extreme positions, and “is silent on the method of force causing the backrest to rotate.” Ans. 4 (citing Schmidhuber, 1:14—19, 3:18—23). We agree with the Examiner. Appellants do not point us to any passage in Schmidhuber that suggests that making a passenger supply the force to move the seatback is a “principle of operation” of Schmidhuber. Further, Appellants do not dispute that adding a spring to Schmidhuber’s hydraulic actuator would have benefited passengers by helping them move the seatback to its upright position. The fact that adding a spring may also have the disadvantage of added cost, weight, and/or complexity “does not necessarily obviate any or all reasons to combine teachings.” Medichem v. Rolabo, 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see Winner Int 7 Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”). 6 Appeal 2016-007033 Application 13/306,851 Finally, Appellants argue that adding a spring to Schmidhuber’s hydraulic actuator would be contrary to Schmidhuber’s goal of providing more than only two extreme seatback positions. Br. 20. Appellants reason that a “spring, which always urges the seat toward one orientation, would be constantly fighting the hydraulic locking mechanism and pushing toward an extreme position.” Id. But Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Kismarton teaches that “traditional” airplane seat actuators contained return springs to help passengers move their seatbacks into an upright position. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably be presumed to have had sufficient experience with these devices to choose springs of the appropriate size so as to avoid overpowering the hydraulic locking mechanism. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art). In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Schmidhuber and Kismarton. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Schmidhuber and Kismarton. We further sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—4, 9, 16, 17, 21, and 23, which fall with claim 1. Claim 22 Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites “a leg rest is formed integrally with and non-articulating with respect to the non- articulated seat shell.” Br. 40 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on front crossbeam 8 of upholstery member 7 as corresponding to the claimed leg rest. Non—Final Act. 4. Appellants contend that “the Examiner appears to 7 Appeal 2016-007033 Application 13/306,851 be confusing a cross beam with a foot rest,” and assert that none of the references teaches a footrest. Br. 27. The Examiner counters that claim 22 recites a leg rest, not a footrest, and that Schmidhuber’s element 8 is situated “where one’s leg would rest, particularly when the seat is tilted to a reclined position.” Ans. 5. Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22. As the Examiner notes at Answer 5, the Specification does not expressly define “leg rest” or provide specific dimensions as its length, etc. Further, Appellants do not deny that a seated passenger’s legs would rest on Schmidhuber’s front crossbeam 8, particularly when the seat is reclined. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 as unpatentable over Schmidhuber and Kismarton. Claims 1—4, 6, 9, 16, 17, and 21—23 Unpatentable over Schmidhuber, Kismarton, and Arata In addition to finding that Kismarton teaches the claimed spring, the Examiner alternatively finds that Arata teaches a seat having a tiltable back that uses a torsion spring “to urge the backrest toward an upright position.” Non—Final Act. 5 (citing Arata, Fig. 3). The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to modify rear support beam of Schmidhuber, to have a spring, as is commonly known in the art and taught by Arata, in order to allow the seatback to return to its upright position without manual effort from the occupant.” Id. Appellants rely on the same arguments presented above in appealing this rejection, particularly noting that “Kismarton’s teaching against any ‘return spring’ is also a teaching against the spring 135 of Arata.” Br. 29. We reject these 8 Appeal 2016-007033 Application 13/306,851 arguments for the same reasons as set forth above, and therefore we sustain this rejection. The Remaining Rejections Appellants rely on the same arguments presented above in appealing the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 8, and 18—20. Br. 33—36. As we find these arguments unpersuasive, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4, 6—9, and 16—23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation