Ex Parte Line et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

13152653 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/152,653 06/03/2011
28415 7590 05/12/2016
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
695 KENMOOR S.E.
P. 0. BOX 2567
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-2567
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Johnathan Andrew Line
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.
83174236 7347
EXAMINER
DUNN, DAVID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 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):
ptomail@priceheneveld.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN ANDREW LINE,
SHAWN ANTHONY DIXON, ROBERT MOORE
KHALED A YY ASH, MAJID AREFI, JAMES CREIGHTON,
V ANJA CEMALOVIC, DANIEL FERRETTI, and
MICHAEL MEDORO
Appeal2014-004286
Application 13/152,653
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 This appeal is related to Appeal 2014-003820 (U.S. Patent Application No.
13/152,667). App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-004286
Application 13/152,653
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "generally relates to a vehicle seat back
member, and more specifically, a vehicle seat back member that efficiently
relays load forces to the frame of a vehicle, thereby minimizing weight and
size characteristics of the vehicle seat back member." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1,
9, and 17 are independent. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claims
on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A vehicle seat back member comprising:
a central web;
a front wall extending from the central web; and
a rear wall extending along a substantial portion of a rear
edge of the central web, wherein a shear center load path of the
vehicle seat back member is disposed proximate an inside comer
defined by a connection of the central web and the rear wall, and
extends substantially along a longitudinal extent of the rear wall
for receiving a load force that results in minimal torsion to the
vehicle seat back member.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Saberan US 2004/0113481 Al June 17, 2004
Ogawa US 7 ,540,563 B2 June 2, 2009
Ishijima US 7,731,292 B2 June 8, 2010
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1---6, 9-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ishijima and Ogawa.
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ishijima, Ogawa, and Saberan.
2
Appeal2014-004286
Application 13/152,653
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-20
as unpatentable over Ishijima and Ogawa
Each independent claim (claims 1, 9, and 17) recites a "shear center
load path," and particularly its location "along an inside comer" of a support
member.2 It is not disputed that the location of a "shear center" "depends
only on the [cross-sectional] geometry and is independent of the loading" on
the object. App. Br., Evidence App., Ex. A, p. 6-14. Further, according to
Appellants
the term "shear center load path" generally refers to a load path
that follows the shear center of a member, and in the present
application, a vehicle seat back member. Stated differently, a
shear center load path generally defines an equilibrium line
where all the forces acting on the vehicle seat back member work
in tandem with each other to control deflection and bending in
the vehicle seat back member.
Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Ishijima discloses a vehicle seat back
member teaching the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17 except for the
claimed location of the shear center load path. Final Act. 4, 6, and 7.
According to the Examiner:
due to the very similar geometry between the cross sections of
the backrests of the current invention (shown on the left below)
and Ishijima (shown on the right below), the shear center load
path oflshijima may be in the inside comer of the central web. If
the shear center load path of Ishijima is not located at the inside
comer of the central web, it is likely close; and as such, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the change
the geometry slightly such that the resulting location of the shear
2 Independent claim 9 recites that the "shear center load path" is confined to
a space between a central web and a rear wall, i.e., "an inside edge."
3
Appeal2014-004286
Application 13/152,653
center load path would be at the inside comer (See lshijima,
Column 4, lines 47-52).
Final Act. 2-3 (emphasis added).
Appellants' Figure 8C and Ishijima Figure 3 are reproduced below:
The figures depict the comparative cross-sectional images of
Appellants' and Ishijima's vehicle seat back support members referred to in
the quote above.
It is well settled that where "the claimed and prior art products are
identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove
that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the
characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255
(CCP A 1977). However, the Examiner fails to explain how or why the
foregoing comparative cross-sectional images are "identical or substantially
identical" to each other. Instead, it is apparent that there are geometric
differences between the two cross-sections and the Examiner provides no
4
Appeal2014-004286
Application 13/152,653
reason as to why these differences can be disregarded. 3 The Examiner does
not indicate why these differences in geometric cross-section would not
warrant a different location of Ishijima's shear center load path than as
claimed. In other words, (a) because the location of a "shear center" (and
hence its "load path") is based "only on the geometry" of the cross-section
(see supra); (b) because there are geometric differences between Appellants'
cross-section and Ishij ima' s cross-section; and, ( c) because Appellants have
shown that changes in cross-section affect the location of the shear center
and its load path, it appears the Examiner resorted to speculation in
rendering this rejection. This is particularly the case in view of the
Examiner stating, "the shear center load path of Ishijima may be in the inside
comer of the central web" and, if not "located at the inside comer of the
central web, it is likely close." Final Act. 2-3 (emphasis added).
The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual
basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in
its factual basis .... Likewise, we may not resolve doubts in favor
of the Patent Office determination when there are deficiencies in
the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal
conclusion of obviousness.
3 It is understood by the Examiner that "Appellant submits Exhibit Bin an
attempt to show that similar geometry does not necessarily correlate with the
location of the shear center load path." Ans. 5. Appellants' Exhibit B does
not depict Ishijima' s cross-section and hence is not indicative that Ishijima' s
shear center load path is actually located elsewhere. However, Exhibit B is
indicative that changes in cross-sectional geometry will result in changes in
the location of the shear center (and hence its load path).
5
Appeal2014-004286
Application 13/152,653
Jn re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Thus, by speculating as
to where the shear center load path in Ishijima may lie, the Examiner has not
made the initial factual findings required to demonstrate a prima facie case
of obviousness of claims 1, 9, and 17.
As if in the altemative,4 the Examiner acknowledges that "Ishijima
fails to disclose" a "shear center load path" that extends as claimed, and the
Examiner relies on Ogawa for disclosing "a shear center load path of the
vehicle seat back member [that] is disposed proximate an inside comer."
Final Act. 4. However, the Examiner's reliance on Ogawa is not persuasive
that the geometry disclosed in Ogawa renders a "shear center load path"
where the Examiner states (Ogawa is actually silent as to a "shear center
load path").5 Final Act. 4. Like Ishijima, the Examiner fails to address
Ogawa's specific cross-sectional geometry before concluding (speculating)
that Ogawa's "shear center load path" "is disposed proximate an inside
comer." Final Act. 4. In summary, the Examiner fails to "articulate[]
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1---6, 9-14, and 17-20 as unpatentable over Ishijima and Ogawa.
4 The Examiner does not concede "that the shear center may be inherent to
Ishijima." Ans. 6-7.
5 The Examiner relies on Ogawa figures 6A and 6B (Final Act. 4) which
depict a shear force applied to back frame 60. Ogawa's back frame 60 has a
tubular U-shape with side supporting parts 61/62 and lower parts/plates 66-
69 attached thereto. Ogawa 3:46---61; see also Fig. 3.
6
Appeal2014-004286
Application 13/152,653
The rejection of claims 7, 8, 15, and 16
as unpatentable over Ishijima, Ogawa, and Saberan
Claims 7, 8, 15 and 16 each depend directly from either claim 1 or 9
discussed supra. The Examiner relies upon the additional teachings of
Saberan to reject these claims. Final Act. 9. However, the Examiner does
not employ Saberan in a manner that might cure the defect of the
combination of Ishijima and Ogawa discussed supra. In other words, the
Examiner's additional reliance on Saberan fails to disclose or suggest a shear
center load path located as recited in accordance with parent claims 1 and 9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 8, 15,
and 16 as unpatentable over Ishijima, Ogawa, and Saberan.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
7