Ex Parte Matsushima

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2017

13334552 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 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.
13/334,552 12/22/2011 Iwao MATSUSHIMA P41067 8174
7055 7590 05/26/2017
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
IJAZ, MUHAMMAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2017 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IWAO MATSUSHIMA
Appeal 2015-003955
Application 13/334,552
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4—6. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 “The real party in interest is Toyota Boshoku Kabushiki Kaisha.”
Br. 3.)
(Appeal
Appeal 2015-003955
Application 13/334,552
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention “relates to a vehicle seat slide mechanism
via which a seat assembly is slidably mounted on the floor of a vehicle.”
(Spec. 12.)
Illustrative Claim
1. A vehicle seat slide mechanism which slidably
mounts a seat assembly on a vehicle floor, comprising:
a lower rail that is mounted on the vehicle floor;
an upper rail which is slidably attached on the lower rail
and on which the seat assembly is attached;
a lock mechanism that locks the upper rail on the lower
rail in a releasable manner; and
a gap reduction member including a plate that extends
between a first face formed at the lower rail and facing in a
substantially vertical direction and a pair of second faces
formed at lowermost portions of the upper rail and facing to the
first face;
wherein the gap reduction member is attached, as viewed
in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle seat, on a rear end
portion of the lower rail, and a longitudinal length of the gap
reduction member is such that at least a portion of the gap
reduction member is present between the upper rail and the
lower rail, regardless of where the upper rail is located in a
sliding range over which the upper rail is slidable relative to the
lower rail.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1,2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Danjo.2
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Danjo.
2 US 7,147,195 B2 issued December 12, 2006.
2
Appeal 2015-003955
Application 13/334,552
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites “a lower rail,” “an upper rail,” and “a
sliding range over which the upper rail is slidable relative to the lower rail.”
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Danjo discloses a
vehicle seat slide mechanism comprising rails with such a sliding range.
(See Final Action 5.) Danjo discloses a mechanism having “a lower rail 2
and an upper rail 4 mounted thereon so as to be slidable relative thereto.”
(Danjo, col. 3,11. 36-41.) The position of Danjo’s upper rail 4 relative to
Danjo’s lower rail 2 is determined by which holes 2e in lower rail 2 are
engaged by a component 42 having a comb-shaped (i.e., toothed) edge. (See
id., col. 3,11. 49-51, col. 4,11. 6—25; Figs. 1, 2.) Thus, Danjo’s slidable
range would include a foremost position whereat toothed component 42
engages the foremost holes 2e in lower rail 2.
Independent claim 1 also recites a “gap reduction member” that “is
attached, as viewed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle seat, on a rear
end portion of the lower rail.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner
finds that Danjo discloses such a member. (See Final Action 5.) Danjo
discloses a “retainer 14” that is “mounted on the bottom wall 2a of the lower
rail 2” at a “rear end portion[] thereof.” (Danjo, col. 4,11. 3—6.) The
Examiner explains that, in Danjo, element 14 “is serving to reduce the
gap/space between the upper rail and lower rail” and thus can be considered
the claimed “gap reduction member.” (Answer 4.)
Independent claim 1 further recites that “a longitudinal length of the
gap reduction member is such that at least a portion of the gap reduction
member is present between the upper rail and the lower rail, regardless of
where the upper rail is located in [the] sliding range.” (Appeal Br., Claims
3
Appeal 2015-003955
Application 13/334,552
App.) The Examiner finds that a portion of Danjo’s rear retainer 14 “is
positioned between the upper rail [4] and the lower rail [2] in all sliding
positions of the upper rail [4].” (Answer 2.)
The Appellant argues that Danjo’s sliding range includes a foremost
position whereat rear retainer 14 will not be positioned between upper rail 4
and lower rail 2. (See Appeal Br. 8, see also Reply Br. 5—6.) We are
persuaded by the Appellant’s argument because the Examiner does not
adequately address why, despite the relative dimensions and spatial
arrangements shown in Danjo’s drawings, this reference discloses that rear
retainer 14 would be present as required by independent claim 1 when upper
rail 4 is in its foremost position.
As discussed above, toothed component 42 engages the foremost
holes 2e in lower rail 2 when Danjo’s upper rail 4 is in its foremost position.
Danjo depicts in its drawings that lower rail 2 and upper rail 4 have
approximately the same elongated lengths; that rear retainer 14 has a
comparatively much shorter length; that foremost holes 2e extend almost to
the forward end of lower rail 2; and that toothed component 42 is fixed to a
roughly central portion of upper rail 4. (See Danjo Figs. 1, 2.) These
relative dimensions and spatial arrangements implicate that, when toothed
component 42 engages the foremost holes 2e on lower rail 2, the rear edge of
upper rail 4 would be located forward of rear retainer 14. The Examiner
does not point, with particularity, to additional drawings and/or written
description in Danjo disclosing otherwise.
As such, the Examiner does not establish that Danjo discloses a gap
reduction member having a longitudinal length “such that at least a portion
of the gap reduction member is present between the upper rail and the lower
4
Appeal 2015-003955
Application 13/334,552
rail, regardless of where the upper rail is located in [the] sliding range” as
required by independent claim l.3 The Examiner’s further findings and
determinations with respect to dependent claims 2 and 4—6 (see Final
Action 6—7) do not compensate for this shortcoming in the rejection of
independent claim 1.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Danjo; and we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Danjo.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4—6.
REVERSED
3 Insofar as the Examiner maintains that independent claim 1 only requires
Danjo’s rear retainer 14 to “appear” to be between lower rail 2 and upper
rail 4 “when viewed in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle seat” (see
Answer 2), we agree with the Appellant that “the Examiner has misread the
claim” (Reply Br. 5). The recited phrase “when viewed in a longitudinal
direction of the vehicle seat” defines a directional reference for the claim
term “rear end portion,” it does not modify the limitation reciting “between
the upper rail and the lower rail.”
5