Ex parte HENSEL

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 15, 2002

08591599 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 15, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WILLI B. HENSEL
____________
Appeal No. 1999-1487
Application No. 08/591,599
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before COHEN, STAAB, and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 6 and 9 through 11. Claims 7 and 8 are objected to
but otherwise are allowable. These claims constitute all of
the claims in the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a working chair. A
basic understanding of the invention can be derived from a
Appeal No. 1999-1487
Application No. 08/591,599
2
reading of exemplary claim 1, a copy of which appears in the
APPENDIX to the main brief (Paper No. 15).
As evidence of anticipation and obviousness, the examiner
has applied the documents listed below:
Hinrichs 4,773,706 Sep. 27,
1988
Klaebel 5,261,727 Nov. 16,
1993
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1 through 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hinrichs.
Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Hinrichs.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hinrichs, as applied to claim 1 above,
further in view of Klaebel.
Appeal No. 1999-1487
Application No. 08/591,599
In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have1
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 16), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
15 and 17).

OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied teachings,1
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow.
Appeal No. 1999-1487
Application No. 08/591,599
4
We cannot sustain the examiner’s respective rejections of
appellant’s claims.
The examiner considers the Hinrichs patent to be
anticipatory of the working chair recited in independent claim
1.
Claim 1 sets forth a particular arrangement of specified
structural components of a working chair whereby a seat is
movable from a backwards declining rest position in which a
front edge of the seat is displaced backwards and downwards
with respect to a carrier frame to a forward declining extreme
position, in which the front edge of the seat is displaced
forwards and upwards with respect to the carrier frame.
A review of the overall teaching of Hinrichs reveals to
us a chair with a pivotal arrangement of components enabling a
seat to be in a basic position G along a horizontal plane X-X
(Figs. 1 and 4) or in an inclined position N (Figs. 1, 3, and
4) wherein a front plate part 5 is located in a diagonal plane
Appeal No. 1999-1487
Application No. 08/591,599
From the background portion of appellant’s specification2
(pages 1 through 3), it appears that the claimed range of
movement between backwards inclining and forwards inclining
positions is known in the chair art.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)is established only3
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
1990); and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
5
Y-Y and a rear plate part 7 is located in a diagonal plane Z-
Z. The patentee also indicates that all intermediate
positions are possible (column 3, lines 4 through 7).
Like appellant (main brief, pages 7, 8, and 10 and reply
brief, page 3), we do not discern an express teaching in
Hinrichs of a chair capable of tilting forward, as claimed
(forward declining extreme position). Further the examiner2
has not established that the chair arrangement of Hinrichs is
inherently capable of the range of movement of claim 1. As3
pointed out by appellant (reply brief, page 3), the examiner
has been silent on the range of motion set forth in claim 1
Appeal No. 1999-1487
Application No. 08/591,599
6
that was argued as not being disclosed by Hinrichs. Since
claim 1 is not anticipated by the evidence, the rejection
thereof under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) cannot be sustained.
As to the respective rejections of the dependent claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we determine that the rationales
thereof, and the addition of the Klaebel teaching, do not
overcome the underlying deficiency of the Hinrichs disclosure,
as described above. Thus, the obviousness rejections cannot
be sustained.
In summary, this panel of the board has not sustained the
respective rejections of appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1999-1487
Application No. 08/591,599
7
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ICC:pgg
Sughrue Mion Zinn Macpeak and Seas
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20037