Ex Parte Hofmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2017

13472357 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2017)

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.
13/472,357 05/15/2012 Jochen HOFMANN 69634/M521 7306
23363 7590 12/18/2017
T ewis; Rnra Rnthcrerher Phrisitie T T P
EXAMINER
PO BOX 29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
ALLRED, DAVID E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2017 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):
pto@lrrc.com
pair_cph @ firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOCHEN HOFMANN,
MARCUS ALEX, and
MARCO GLEIBERG
Appeal 2016-003648
Application 13/472,3571
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants disclose “a vehicle seat with a seat part, a backrest and a
fitting which pivotally connects the backrest with the seat part about a
swivel axis.” Abstract.
1 Appellants identify Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. KG as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003648
Application 13/472,357
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A vehicle seat comprising
a seat part,
a backrest,
a fitting which pivotally connects the backrest with the seat part
about a swivel axis,
wherein the fitting includes a seat-part-side fitting part firmly
connected with the seat part, a backrest-side fitting part coupled
with the backrest via a locking mechanism, and a rotary fitting
mechanism pivotally connecting the seat-part-side fitting part
with the backrest-side fitting part about the swivel axis,
a driving device arranged on the backrest for driving the rotary
fitting mechanism, and
at least one seat-part-side stop and at least one backrest-side
stop for limiting a swivel path of the seat-part-side fitting part
and the backrest-side fitting part relative to each other, the
locking mechanism
being movable between a locking position in which the locking
mechanism firmly couples the backrest-side fitting part with the
backrest, so that the backrest is adjustable in its inclination
relative to the seat part by driving the rotary fitting mechanism,
and
a free-pivoting position in which the locking mechanism
uncouples the backrest-side fitting part from the backrest, so
that the backrest can be pivoted into a folded position in a
swivel direction about the swivel axis,
wherein the driving device is formed to actuate the rotary
fitting mechanism for pivoting the backrest-side fitting part by a
predetermined angle opposite to the swivel direction when the
locking mechanism is actuated for pivoting the backrest into the
folded position.
2
Appeal 2016-003648
Application 13/472,357
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act.
5-6.
The Examiner rejects claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kienke et al. (US 2010/0060064 Al; published Mar. 11,
2010) and Braune (DE 102004061960 Al; published July 6, 2006). Final
Act. 6-13.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph—Claims 1—5 and 7—10
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
Examiner find that the Specification fails to disclose “whether moving
element 24 actuates a switch or whether rotational movement of the backrest
22 is required to cause the driving device to drive the rotary fitting
mechanism.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds the Specification
does not disclose “that rotational movement of the backrest by the user is
completely manual or via the driving device or some other motor.” Id.
Thus, the Examiner concludes the Specification fails to enable a driving
device arranged on the backrest for driving the rotary fitting mechanism,
wherein the driving device is formed to actuate the rotary fitting mechanism
for pivoting the backrest-side fitting part by a predetermined angle opposite
to the swivel direction, as recited by claim 1. Id.; see also Ans. 3.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “the specification
establishes that the driving device 5 acts on shaft 4 to rotate the shaft which
in turn actuates the rotary fitting mechanism.” App. Br. 6. In particular,
Appellants cite to the Specification’s disclosure that “[f]or actuating the
3
Appeal 2016-003648
Application 13/472,357
rotary fitting mechanism 25, the actuating member 250 is rotated about the
swivel axis D by driving the shaft 4.” Spec. 11,11. 17—18 (cited in App. Br.
6); see also Spec. Figs. 2—3 (depicting driving device 5, arranged on backrest
11 and coupled via transmission 51 to shaft 4). Appellants further notes the
Specification discloses that “control of the driving device 5 ... is effected
via an electronic control unit 6.” Spec. 15,11. 7—8 (cited by App. Br. 6); see
also Reply Br. 3^4.
The Examiner’s concludes that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, are not met based on the finding that “it is not known or
understood from the disclosure how the driving device and rotary fitting
mechanism are actuated to pivot the backrest-side fitting part by a
predetermined angle or by less than the predetermined angle.” Final Act. 5.
However, the disputed recitations are directed to the arrangement of the
claimed driving device and its actuation of the claimed rotary fitting
mechanism, not to the actuation of the driving device itself. This aspect of
the disputed recitations is enabled by the disclosed arrangement of driving
device 5 (including transmission 51), shaft 4, and rotary fitting mechanism
25. See, e.g., Spec. Figs. 2—3. That is, the Specification discloses how
driving device 5 drives or actuates rotary fitting mechanism 25. Therefore,
we agree with Appellants that the Specification enables: (1) “a driving
device arranged on the backrest for driving the rotary fitting mechanism”
and (2) “wherein the driving device is formed to actuate the rotary fitting
mechanism,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants also show that the Specification enables actuation of the
rotary fitting mechanism for pivoting the backrest-side fitting part by a
predetermined angle opposite to the swivel direction. In particular,
4
Appeal 2016-003648
Application 13/472,357
Appellants note the Specification discloses that “driving device (5). . .
actuate[s] the rotary fitting mechanism (25) for pivoting the backrest-side
fitting part (251) by a predetermined angle (y) opposite to the swivel
direction (V).” App. Br. 2 (citing Spec. 13,11. 24—31, 14,11. 10—21, Figs. 4,
6). This actuation occurs “at the beginning of a forward-pivoting movement
of the backrest 11.” Spec. 14,11. 12—13. Appellants further note that
electronic control unit 6 controls driving device 5. App. Br. 7; see also
Spec. 15,11. 7—8. The Specification further details the use of “tilt detection
means 7 ... for measuring the tilt position of the backrest 11” to ascertain
“whether moving the backrest-side fitting part 11 back against the swivel
direction V is required.” Spec. 15,11. 19—23; see also Ans. 6 (citing Spec.
16,11. A-6).
Although the Examiner finds “it is not disclosed whether moving
element 24 actuates a switch or whether rotational movement of the backrest
22 is required to cause the driving device to drive the rotary fitting
mechanism” (Ans. 3; see also id. at 4—5; Final Act. 5), these disclosures in
the Specification detail measuring the tilt position of backrest 11 and
controlling driving device 5 to pivot backrest-side fitting part 251 by
predetermined angle y opposite to swivel direction V. Therefore, we agree
with Appellants that “one skilled in the art would understand without due
experimentation that a sensor could be used to detect. . . movement of the
backrest 11... and provide such information to the electronic control unit
6[,] which would then automatically actuate the driving device 5.” Reply
Br. 6. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Specification discloses
the claimed actuation of the rotary fitting mechanism “for pivoting the
backrest-side fitting part by predetermined angle opposite to the swivel
5
Appeal 2016-003648
Application 13/472,357
direction when the locking mechanism is actuated for pivoting the backrest
into the folded position,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—5 and 7—10, which the
Examiner rejects for similar reasons. Final Act. 5.
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph—Claim 6
In rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
Examiner concludes the recitation directed to wherein an actuation of the
rotary fitting mechanism is blocked when the backrest is in the folded
position is not enabled because the Specification does not address whether
“the driving device cannot be actuated when the backrest is in the folded
position, and if so . . . how the backrest is then moved from the folded
position.” Final Act. 5—6; see also Ans. 3.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the Specification
discloses that “[wjhen the backrest 11 is in its folded position PK in
connection with the free-pivoting function, an actuation of the rotary fitting
mechanism 25 advantageously is blocked, so that the backrest-side fitting
part 251 .. . cannot be rotated.” Spec. 16,11. 15—18 (cited in App. Br. 9).
We agree with Appellants that this disclosed blocking enables the recitation
directed to “wherein an actuation of the rotary fitting mechanism is blocked
when the backrest is in the folded position,” as recited in claim 6.
The Examiner further questions whether it is “only possible to
manually move the backrest from the folded position?” Final Act. 6; see
also Ans. 3. Even though Appellants address this question (see App. Br. 9),
we merely note that the disputed recitation is not directed to the operation of
moving the backrest from the folded position. Therefore, the Examiner’s
6
Appeal 2016-003648
Application 13/472,357
question does not raise any additional issues of enablement with respect to
the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of claim 6.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Claims 1-10
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
Braune “discloses an inclination adjuster similar to that of Kienke and
further discloses detecting an angle of the backrest by an encoder and
pivoting the backrest by a predetermined angle.” Final Act. 7. In particular,
the Examiner concludes Kienke’s driving device renders obvious wherein
the driving device is formed to actuate the rotary fitting mechanism for
pivoting the backrest-side fitting part while Braune’s “controlling the angle
of adjustment not to exceed the limits of the stops” renders obvious the
pivoting being by a predetermined angle opposite to the swivel direction
when the locking mechanism is actuated for pivoting the backrest into the
folded position. Id. at 9 (citing Kienke col. 4,11. 66—67; Braune 120).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Braune merely
“teaches a rotary encoder to effect a stopping of the driving device to
maintain a sufficient distance between the backrest inclination stops, [rather
than] a driving device formed to actuate a rotary fitting mechanism for
pivoting the backrest-side fitting part in a direction opposite to the swivel
direction upon actuation of a locking mechanism.” App. Br. 11; see also
Reply Br. 7 (Braune’s “rotary encoder merely detects rotation and interrupts
the electromotive tilt adjustment”). Appellants’ arguments are consistent
with Braune’s teachings related to a device “which interrupts the
electromotive tilt adjustment of the backrest before reaching the end
7
Appeal 2016-003648
Application 13/472,357
position” (Braune Mech. Trans. 119 (June 19, 2014)) and the use of
“mechanical limit stops 5.1 and 5.2, to stop the motor 8” {id. 120).
The Examiner finds that the feature of actuating the rotary fitting in a
direction opposite to the swivel direction is “provided by the base reference
to Kienke.” Ans. 6. However, the Examiner fails to pinpoint any particular
teaching or suggestion in Kienke that would have rendered obvious the
disputed recitation. See id. Instead, the Examiner merely further discusses
Braune’s teachings and suggestions without persuasively showing that
Braune’s angle adjustment limitations—combined with Kienke’s backrest,
seat bottom, and other features—renders obvious the disputed actuation of a
rotary fitting mechanism in the claimed manner. Ans. 6—7. Therefore, we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not presented sufficient
reasoning to support the conclusion that the combination of Kienke and
Braune renders obvious the disputed limitations.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 2—10, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10.
REVERSED
8