Ex parte HUSTED

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 2, 1999

08673921 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Jan. 2, 1999)

Application for patent filed July 1, 1996. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DANIEL W. HUSTED
____________
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,9211
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before CALVERT, COHEN, and FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 13 and 20 through 22. Claims 14 through 19, the only
other claims remaining in the application, stand objected to
as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
3
allowable, according to the examiner, if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a vehicle seat assembly
having an armrest assembly. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, a copy of
which appears in the APPENDIX to the brief (Paper No. 8).
As evidence, the examiner has applied the documents
listed
below:
Neale 3,166,080 Jan. 19,
1965
Ohshima et al. (Ohshima) 5,109,571 May
5, 1992

The following rejections are before us for review.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Neale.
Claims 2 through 13 and 20 through 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Neale in view
of Ohshima.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
4
(Paper No. 9), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 8).
In the brief (page 4), appellant notes the separate
rejection of claim 1 and indicates that as to the rejection of
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
In light of the underlying disclosure (specification,2
page 6), we understand the recitation of a "second" abutment
relative to the detent in claim 2, notwithstanding that a
first abutment has not been claimed.
In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have3
considered all of the disclosure thereof 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).
5
claims 2 through 13 and 20 through 22, the claims stand or
fall together. Accordingly, as to the latter rejection, claim
2 is selected for review, and claims 3 through 13 and 20
through 22 shall stand or fall therewith. We, therefore,
focus our attention exclusively upon claims 1 and 2, infra.
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 patents,2 3
and
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
6
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
A detent is a device (as a catch, dog, or spring-4
operated ball) for positioning and holding one mechanical part
in relation to another so that the device can be released by
force applied to one of the parts. Webster’s New Collegiate
Dictionary, G.&C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts,
1979. The disclosed detent is consistent with this
definition.
7
The anticipation rejection
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Neale.
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, a "detent" disposed on a
shaft for engaging a bin and rotatable about the shaft with a
cover for retaining the cover in at least one detent position,
and with a spring biasing the detent axially against the bin.
As we see it, the patent to Neale fails to teach a
detent, in particular, as now claimed. 4
In the answer (pages 3 and 5), the examiner refers to
element 19 of Neale as a detent. However, the patentee
discloses a pair of hinge knuckles 19, not detents, attached
to the body 10. Similarly, the lid 11 of Neale includes a
pair of knuckles, and a bridge piece 25 likewise includes a
pair of knuckles 24. A hinge pin or rod 23 passes through the
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
8
specified knuckles. A torsion spring 26 is located between
the knuckles 24 and has
tails abutting the lid and the bridge piece, respectively.
The torsion spring 26 of Neale does not bias a detent axially
against a body (bin), as now claimed. We note that a
releasable catch mechanism 29, 32 can hold the lid in a
snapped shut
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
The Neale disclosure is akin to the prior art spring-5
biased covers described by appellant (specification, pages 1
and 2).
9
position on the body (Figures 1 and 5). The lid flies open
under the influence of the torsion spring 26 when the catch
mechanism is released (column 1, lines 47 through 51 and
column 2, lines 15 through 17). For the above reasons, the5
subject matter of claim 1 is not anticipated by the Neale
teaching.
The obviousness rejection
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through
13 and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Neale in view of Ohshima.
Dependent claim 2 adds the limitation of the detent
including a second abutment for mechanical interlocking
engagement with a spring whereby the detent rotates with the
spring.
The combined teachings of Neale and Ohshima would not
have been suggestive of the content of claim 2, which claim
incorporates the subject matter of parent claim 1.
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
10
The examiner (answer, page 3) refers to the movable cam 9
of Ohshima as a movable detent, and the groove 6c as a second
abutment in the detent. However, groove 6c is disposed in the
fixed cam 6, not the movable cam 9. Thus, groove 6c is not a
second abutment in the detent, as pointed out by appellant
(brief, page 7). It follows that, as to the added limitation
of claim 2, the applied prior art would not have been
suggestive thereof. Additionally, we note that the movable
cam 9 (detent) of Ohshima is not rotatable relative to the
shaft 8, whereas a limitation of appellant’s independent claim
1 requires the detent to be rotatable about the shaft. The
combined teachings of Neale and Ohshima, therefore, would not
have suggested the claimed invention to one having ordinary
skill in the art.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Neale; and
reversed the rejection of claims 2 through 13 and 20
through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Neale in view of Ohshima.
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
11
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
12
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
13
ICC/sld
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
14
Richard S. MacMillian
MacMillian, Sobanski & Todd L.L.C.
One Maritime Plaza, Fourth Floor
720 Water Street
Toledo, OH 43604
Shereece
Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
APJ COHEN
APJ CALVERT
APJ FRANKFORT
REVERSED
Prepared: April 12, 2000