Ex Parte GREGGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 10, 201914668888 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/668,888 03/25/2015 55409 7590 05/14/2019 TEMMERMAN LAW OFFICE MATHEW J. TEMMERMAN ONE MARKET STREET SPEAR TOWER, 36TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR JAMEY GREGG 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. 433.01 5772 EXAMINER VERAA, CHRISTOPHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2019 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): MATHEW@TEMMERMANLA W.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMEY GREGG Appeal2018-008122 Application 14/668,888 1 Technology Center 3600 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, BEYERL Y M. BUNTING, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 GUTS, Inc. ("Appellant") is the Applicant, and is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. 37 C.F .R. § 1.46; Br. 2. Appeal2018-008122 Application 14/668,888 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's disclosure "relates in general to motorcycle seats. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to an improved motorcycle seat assembly with enhanced traction to prevent a rider from sliding on the seat while operating the motorcycle." Spec. ,-J 2. Claims 1, 5, and 9 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative, and reads: 1. A motorcycle seat assembly comprising: a base layer having at least one first fastener affixed to an outer edge thereof, the base layer configured to be mechanically coupled to a motorcycle; a foam member disposed over the base layer, the foam member having a plurality of grooves oriented substantially parallel to one another on a top portion thereof and a plurality of second fasteners affixed to the plurality of grooves such that each groove is affixed to each respective second fastener; and a cover having a plurality of third fasteners oriented substantially parallel to one another and affixed to a bottom portion thereof and at least one fourth fastener affixed to an outer edge of the cover, the cover being secured around the base layer and the foam member; whereby the plurality of grooves provides an enhanced traction to prevent a rider from sliding on the motorcycle seat while operating the motorcycle. Br. 11 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cate (US 3,741,596, issued June 26, 1973), Cauvin (US 3,233,253, issued Feb. 8, 1966), Matsler (US 7,648,198 Bl, issued Jan. 19, 2010), and Reyes (US 5,236,243, issued Aug. 17, 1993). 2 Appeal2018-008122 Application 14/668,888 Claims 4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cate, Cauvin, Matsler, Reyes, and Reading (US 7,604,292 B 1, issued Oct. 20, 2009). Claims 1-3 ANALYSIS Obviousness over Cate, Cauvin, Matsler, and Reyes (Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10) For claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cate discloses a motorcycle seat comprising a base layer (bottom plate 14 ), a foam member (padding material 20), and a cover (upholstery 26, 28, 29) fastened to the base layer with rivets 24. Non-Final Act. 2 (citing Cate, Figs. 1, 7, col. 4, 11. 29-37, col. 5, 11. 15- 31 ). The Examiner finds that Cate does not disclose the following features: the rivets "are ... separate fasteners that engage" (id.); "grooves in the foam member" (id. at 3); and "mating fasteners that join the cover and the foam member" (id.). As for the "separate fasteners that engage," the Examiner finds that Cauvin teaches a vehicle seat comprising a cover ( covering material 5), a cushion (lower pad 3, upper pad 4), and a base layer (shell I) including a fastener (turned-over portion 9) affixed to its edge that engages with a fastener ( clip-on means 6, 7) affixed to an outer edge of the cover. Id. at 2 (citing Cauvin, Fig. 1, col. 1, 11. 47-62). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cate's cover to include Cauvin's clips to make the cover removable. Id. at 3. As for the "grooves in the foam member," the Examiner finds that Matsler teaches a motorcycle seat cushion comprising a cushion layer 3 Appeal2018-008122 Application 14/668,888 (cushion 10) that includes grooves, and wells 36, which are parallel to one another to provide enhanced traction on the seat. Id. ( citing Matsler, Fig. 8, col. 3, 11. 1-8, col. 4, 11. 29-50). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form Cate's cushion with grooves, as taught by Matsler, "to provide enhanced traction or stability for a rider." Id. As for the "mating fasteners that join the cover and the foam member," the Examiner finds that Reyes discloses a vehicle seat having a cover ( trim cover 12) that joins to a foam cushion ( foam seat cushion 10) with mating Velcro strips (fasteners 40, 45) located in grooves (recesses 20) of the seat cushion. Id. (citing Reyes, Figs. 1-5, col. 2, 11. 17-61). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination to include Velcro fasteners in the grooves, as taught by Reyes, "to make the cover conform tightly to the shape of the foam member." Id. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not considered that "the base layer is under the foam layer, which is under the cover, and ... the cover is 'secured around the base layer and the foam member' as claimed." Br. 6. The Examiner responds, however, that this limitation is disclosed in Cate and is also addressed in the rejection. Ans. 3-4. Particularly, the Examiner explains that Cate describes, "The upholstery is stretched tight over the padding, and fastened around the edge of the bottom of bottom plate 14 by means of a plurality of pop rivets, shown at 24 in FIG. 7." Id. at 4; see Cate, col. 5, 11. 26-29, Fig. 7. And, the Examiner explains that the rejection includes the finding that "the cover is fastened to the base layer 4 Appeal2018-008122 Application 14/668,888 with pop rivets 24" in Cate. Ans. 4. Accordingly, Appellant's contention does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's rejection. Appellant also contends that "the fitting arrangements of the seat that would exist from the combination of art is different when compared to that claimed in the present application." Br. 6 ( emphasis added). This contention is unpersuasive for several reasons. First, Appellant does not explain clearly what is meant by "the fitting arrangements of the seat." We note that this language is neither recited in claim 1 nor described in Appellant's Specification. Second, Appellant does not explain how "the fitting arrangements of the seat that would exist from the combination" would, in fact, be different from "the fitting arrangements of the seat" as claimed. Namely, Appellant does identify any particular limitation(s) recited in claim 1 that would be missing in the motorcycle seat resulting from the combined teachings of Cate, Cauvin, Matsler, and Reyes because this combination purportedly would have a different "fitting arrangement." Accordingly, this contention also does not apprise us of Examiner error. Appellant also contends that "the method of securing the cover around the base layer and the foam member when placed on the motorcycle of the Applicant's invention is different from Cate and Matsler." Br. 6. This contention is unpersuasive for several reasons. First, the Examiner explains that "the claims are directed to a motorcycle seat assembly, i.e. an article of manufacture, and not to a process of making the article including a method of securing the cover." Ans. 4 (emphasis added). Second, in contrast to Appellant's description of the steps of the method of securing "[i]n Applicant's invention," claim 1 does not recite the limitation that "the cover is placed on the base layer and the plurality of third 5 Appeal2018-008122 Application 14/668,888 fasteners of the cover and the plurality of second fasteners on the plurality of grooves is attached directly to each other," or the limitation that "the at least one fourth fast[ en ]er of the cover is directly adhered to the at least one first fastener on the base layer." Br. 6. That is, claim 1 does not recite that the "third fasteners" of the cover and the "second fasteners affixed to . . . the plurality of grooves" of the foam member are "attached directly to each other" ( or similar language), or that "the at least one fourth fastener" of the cover is "directly adhered" ( or similar language) to "at least one first fastener" on the based layer. Id.; see Br. 11. As such, Appellant's argument is premised on unclaimed limitations. However, limitations that do not appear in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 3, which are not separately argued, as unpatentable over Cate, Cauvin, Matsler, and Reyes. Claims 5-7, 9, and 10 For independent claims 5 and 9, Appellant relies on the same arguments made for claim 1. Br. 7, 8. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 9, and of claims 6, 7, and 10 depending from claim 5 or 9, as unpatentable over Cate, Cauvin, Matsler, and Reyes, for the same reasons as for claim 1. Obviousness over Cate, Cauvin, Matsler, Reyes, and Reading (Claims 4, 8, and 11) Appellant relies solely on the dependency of claims 4, 8, and 11 from claim 1 or 9 for patentability. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of 6 Appeal2018-008122 Application 14/668,888 claims 4, 8, and 11 as unpatentable over Cate, Cauvin, Matsler, Reyes, and Reading for the same reasons as for claims 1 and 9. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1-11. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation