Ex Parte Fullerton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13304634 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/304,634 11/26/2011
101264 7590 09/26/2016
Parsons Behle & Latimer
Attn: Docketing
800 W. Main Street, Suite 1300
Boise, ID 83702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James A. Fullerton
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
19941.034US02 8487
EXAMINER
BENEDIK, JUSTIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
uspto@parsonsbehle.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES A. FULLERTON, SCOTT E. COBURN,
R. KLAUS BRAUER, BLAKE EMERY, SEBASTIAN PETRY,
JEFFREY BERNETT, DON CHADWICK, and DAVID WYKES
Appeal2014-009834
Application 13/304,634
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEP AN ST AI CO VICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James A. Fullerton et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's non-final decision rejecting claims 17-19 and 22-31. 1
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claims 1-16, 20, and 21 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 3 (filed Feb. 26,
2014).
Appeal2014-009834
Application 13/304,634
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to "a lightweight modular aircraft passenger
seat." Spec. para. 2. Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
17. A passenger seat assembly for an aircraft, the passenger
seat assembly comprising:
a one-piece structural frame configured to support at least
one passenger, the one-piece structural frame comprising a first
seat subframe, a second seat subframe, and an aircraft mounting
structure integrally formed therein;
an armrest, attached to each of the first and second seat
subframes;
a first comfort frame assembly pivotally coupled to the
first seat subframe, the first comfort frame assembly comprising
a first one-piece support frame and a first fabric carrier defining
a first chair seat surface coupled to the first one-piece support
frame; and
a second comfort frame assembly pivotally coupled to the
second seat subframe, the second comfort frame assembly
comprising a second one-piece support frame and a second fabric
carrier defining a second chair seat surface coupled to the second
one-piece support frame.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Pratt US 2004/0099766 Al May 27, 2004
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 17, 18, 22, 23, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Pratt.
2
Appeal2014-009834
Application 13/304,634
IL Claims 19 and 24--26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pratt.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Each of independent claims 1 7 and 18 requires that a comfort frame
assembly defines a "chair seat surface." See Appeal Br. 23-24. The
Examiner relies on outer armrests 22 and 25 of Pratt as a chair seat surface
(see Non-Final Act. 2, transmitted Oct. 2, 2013) and asserts that "any surface
is capable of reading on the limitation of a chair seat if someone is capable
of resting something on it or sitting on it." Ans. 2. Appellants argue that the
Examiner's interpretation of Pratt's armrest as a "chair seat surface" is not
reasonable. See Appeal Br. 11-15; see also Reply Br. 4.
Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Or., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In
light of the Specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art, it is not reasonable to interpret the recited chair seat surface to
include an armrest. Instead, the term "chair seat surface," read in light of the
Specification, is the portion of the seat on which an aircraft passenger sits,
because Appellants' Specification describes that the seating/passenger
support surface of the comfort support frame portion of the passenger seat
provides a "uniform distribution of body weight over the suspension fabric"
and "provides comfortable support for the passenger while significantly
reducing mass compared to conventional passenger seat designs." Spec.,
3
Appeal2014-009834
Application 13/304,634
para. 28; see also para. 35. Appellants' Specification refers to armrest 128
as a distinct element that may be separately coupled to structural frame 106,
and the claims include an armrest that is distinct from the comfort frame
assembly that defines a "chair seat surface." Id. para. 42; claims 17 and 18.
"In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the
use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings."
CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317
(Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover, Pratt also uses the term "armrest" as a distinct
structural element from seating surfaces 30A, 30B. See Pratt, paras. 33, 34,
and Fig. 6. In light of Appellants' Specification and the usage of the term
"armrest" in the prior art, we do not agree with the Examiner's finding that
Pratt's armrest qualifies as the "chair seat surface" recited in claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 17, 18, 22,
23, and 27-31 as anticipated by Pratt.
Rejection II
The Examiner's obviousness rejection based on Pratt suffers from the
same deficiency as the Examiner's anticipation rejection based on Pratt.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 19 and 24--26.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 17-19 and 22-31 is
reversed.
REVERSED
4