Ex Parte Marqués et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2017

14066895 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
14/066,895 10/30/2013 Jose Marques LEAR49981PUS1 5044
34007 7590 08/11/2017
RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /T FAR TORPOR ATTON EXAMINER
1000 TOWN CENTER DUNN, DAVID R
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2017 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):
docketing @brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSE MARQUES and JEAN-MARIE CHARTRAIN
Appeal 2016-002414
Application 14/066,8951
Technology Center 3600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1—10, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this appeal. Appeal Br., Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Lear Corporation. App. Br.
4.
Appeal 2016-002414
Application 14/066,895
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
vehicle seat cushion assembly (10) containing a leather material (12)
defining an outer seating surface (13) having sewn on the underside (15)
thereof a woven tulle material (18) along two parallel sewing lines (14, 16)
disposed from the edge of the materials and along two other sewing lines
(86, 88) adjacent to the materials separated by a wadding material (60) to
thereby form at least three interior spaces. Spec. 17—24, Figs. 1, 3^4.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A vehicle seat cushion assembly comprising:
a piece of a first material defining an outer seating surface;
a piece of a second material having a greater stretchability
than a stretchability of the first material, the piece of the second
material being sewn directly to an underside of the piece of the
first material: (a) along at least two generally parallel sewing
lines disposed inboard from edges of the first and second
materials, and (b) along at least two other sewing lines
respectively disposed adjacent edges of the first and second
materials, such that at least three separate interior spaces are
formed; and
a wadding material disposed between the first and second
materials in the at least three interior spaces.
2
Appeal 2016-002414
Application 14/066,895
Prior Art Relied Upon
Park
Niwa
US 2004/0195227 A1
US 7,823,890 B2
Oct. 7, 2004
Nov. 2, 2010
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1 and 4—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Niwa. Final Act. 2.
Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Niwa. Id. at 3—4.
Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Niwa and Park. Id. at 4.
We consider Appellants’ arguments, seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5—11, and in the Reply Brief, pages 1—4.2
Appellants argue that Niwa does not describe a piece of a first
material having directly sewn to its underside a piece of a second material,
as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 1—2. In particular,
Appellants ague Niwa discloses a seat cushion assembly having a multi-
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 22, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
December 15, 2015), and the Answer (mailed November 13, 2015) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejections
3
Appeal 2016-002414
Application 14/066,895
layer skin member made up of different pieces (2a through 2g), each piece
having an upper leather outer surface, and a base member on the back side,
both cut substantially in the same shape. App. Br. 6 (citing Niwa 2:41—48,
3:31—33). According to Appellants, “the multiple pieces described in Niwa
et al. are not a piece of a first material.” Id. Further, Appellants argue that
even if the woven cloth included in the base member at the side, opposed to
the leather, describes the claimed second material, Niwa does not describe
such second material to be sewn to the leather.3 Id. at 7. These arguments
are not persuasive.
At the outset, we echo the Examiner’s finding Niwa’s skin member of
a vehicular seat, including a seat back (10b) made up of pieces 2f, 2g, 2h,
3 Although Appellants make a general allegation that Niwa does not describe
the second material to be sewn to the first material so as to form three
separate interior spaces, Appellants have not explained how the cited
portions of Niwa relied upon by the Examiner fail to describe the formation
of the three interior spaces. Appellants are reminded that a general
allegation as to the purported benefits of the claimed invention, and a
general discussion of the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in the
rejection are not tantamount to a responsive argument. Such a response to
the Examiner’s findings is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error, as
mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7—8 (BPAI
Aug. 10, 2009) (informative); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
[patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
4
Appeal 2016-002414
Application 14/066,895
along with a seat cushion (10a) made up of pieces 2a, 2b, 2c, describes the
claimed seat cushion assembly. Ans. 2. Further, as correctly noted by the
Examiner, Niwa’s disclosure of the pieces with an upper leather surface
sewn together describes the claimed piece of a first material defining an
outer surface. Id. at 3 (citing Niwa 2:56). Likewise, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the woven cloth included in the base material sewn
directly to the underside of the leather material describes the claimed piece
of the second material being sewn directly to the first material. Id. at 3—5
(citing Niwa 3:13—14, 3:39-41). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding Niwa anticipates claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 6, the
patentability of which is argued for similar reasons as independent claim 1.
App. Br. 8. Dependent claims 4, 5 7, and 8 are only nominally argued
separately, so the rejection of these claims are sustained for the reasons
given for their respective independent claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.37(c)(l)(iv).
Obviousness Rejections
Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 3, 9, and 10, Appellants argue
that because Niwa does not describe a piece of a first material and a piece of
a second material, as recited in claims 1 and 6, Niwa does not describe the
subject matter of claims 2, 3, 9, and 10. App. Br. 7—9. This argument is
unavailing. As discussed above, we find Niwa’s disclosure of the pieces of
materials describes the claimed first and second pieces of materials. We are
therefore not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 9,
and 10.
5
Appeal 2016-002414
Application 14/066,895
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 4—8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claim 2, 3, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6