Ex Parte Senoh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 2009

10822706 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte TOMOTOSHI SENOH and TETSUO YOSHIDA
________________

Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided:1 June 15, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part, and enter a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(b).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim invention of a device for weighing a seated vehicle
passenger. The weight being measured is applied to a resilient member, i.e.,
an arm that has one end supported at a support point. The other end of the
resilient member is in communication with a sensor plate that has an
attached load sensor. The sensor plate is attached to a sensor support. Thus,
the resilient member is mounted from the support point, and the resilient
member, through communication with the sensor plate, also is mounted from
the sensor support. The weight being measured is applied to the resilient
member between the support point and the load sensor that is attached to the
sensor plate.2 Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative:
1. A device for measuring a weight of a seat, including a weight
of an occupant sitting on the seat, the device comprising:
a resilient member supported by at least one support point; and
a load sensor supported by a sensor plate and a sensor support
and in communication with the resilient member and positioned
to receive the weight of the seat, wherein the sensor support is
formed on an underside of the sensor plate;
wherein the device is configured so that the weight of the seat is
applied between the at least one support point and the sensor
support.

2 See generally Spec. ¶¶ 0001, 0025, 0026, 0031, 0040, 0042, 0047, and
0048; Figs. 1(A), 1(B), 2(A), 2(B), 3(A), and 3(B).
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

3
7. A device for measuring seat weight including a weight of an
occupant sitting on a seat, the device comprising:
a base having two side plates;
an arm rotatably supported by and interdisposed between the
side plates of the base via a base pin;
a pin bracket in communication with the arm via a bracket pin
and further adapted to be in communication with the seat,
wherein the bracket pin is partially located between the two side
plates of the base; and
a load sensor in communication with the arm; and
wherein the pin bracket is located between the base pin and the
load sensor.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Aoki (“Aoki ’325”) US 6,069,325 May 30, 2000
Aoki (“Aoki ’444”) US 6,323,444 B1 Nov. 27, 2001
Cooper US 6,448,512 B1 Sep. 10, 2002
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Cooper (Ans. 3-12).3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Cooper and Aoki ’325 (Ans. 13-14).

3 Claim 11 is neither listed nor discussed in the reported § 102 rejection
(Ans. 3-12), but Appellants list claim 11 as being appealed from the § 102
rejection (See App. Br. 8). The Examiner confirms that the Appeal Brief’s
“Status of Claims,” “Summary of Claimed Subject Matter,” and “Claims
Appendix,” which all include claim 11 as rejected under § 102 or reference
claim 11 as appealed, are “correct” (Ans. 2, 3). Accordingly, we presume
the Examiner intended to include claim 11 in this rejection.
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

4
3. The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cooper and Aoki ’444 (Ans. 14).
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or of the Examiner,
we refer to the Briefs and the Answer4 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only arguments actually made by Appellants.
Arguments Appellants could have made but did not make are not considered
and are deemed as waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants’ Arguments
For the rejection under § 102, Appellants argue that claims 1, 2, and 4
are patentable because of a contention that a disclosed Cooper lever that is
relied on by the Examiner does not teach a claim 1 recited sensor plate in
communication with a resilient member (App. Br. 10, 11). Appellants
further argue that claims 5 and 6 are patentable because of a contention that
Cooper fails to teach a claimed pin bracket as being supported between the
resilient member and a seat (App. Br. 11, 12). Additionally, Appellants
argue that claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 are patentable because of a contention that
Cooper fails to teach a claim 7 limitation for an arm rotatably supported
between side plates by a base pin (App. Br. 6-8).
For the rejection under § 103 over Cooper and Aoki ’325, Appellants
argue claims 12 and 13 are patentable because of a contention that Aoki ’325
fails to cure asserted Cooper deficiencies for anticipating base independent
claim 7 (App. Br. 8, 9).

4 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 22,
2008; (2) the Answer mailed Mar. 17, 2008; and (3) the Reply Brief filed
May 13, 2008.
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

5
Similarly, for the rejection under § 103 over Cooper and Aoki ’444,
Appellants argue (1) claim 3 is patentable because of a contention that Aoki
’444 fails to cure asserted Cooper deficiencies for anticipating base
independent claim 1, and (2) claim 9 is patentable because of a contention
that Aoki ’444 fails to cure asserted Cooper deficiencies for anticipating
base independent claim 7 (App. Br. 8).

ISSUES
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims under
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Cooper? This main issue turns on the following
pivotal issues:
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding Cooper
teaches:
(a) a sensor support mounted sensor plate in communication with a
resilient member as recited in claim 1;
(b) a pin bracket as recited in claims 5 and 6; and
(c) an arm rotatably supported between two side plates by a base pin
as recited in claim 7?
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred under § 103 in modifying
Cooper with Aoki ’325 teachings to arrive at the invention recited in claims
12 and 13? This issue turns on whether modification of Cooper by Aoki
’325 renders the disputed limitations of independent claim 7 obvious under §
103.
Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred under § 103 in modifying
Cooper with Aoki ’444 to arrive at the invention recited in claims 3 and 9?
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

6
This issue turns on whether Cooper and Aoki ’444 collectively render these
claims unpatentable.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
Present Application
1. The Specification of the present application discloses that a
“known seat weight measuring device [is] shown in FIGS. 4 to
7.” This acknowledged prior art device has an arm 23 connected
at one end to a sensor plate 51 with an attached load sensor 54.
The sensor plate 51 is fixed to a sensor support column 63. The
weight of seat 3 is transferred from a seat rail 7 to arm 23 using a
pin bracket 25. A base pin 31 connects the arm 23 at a support
point. The base pin 31 support connection is situated between
the pin bracket 25 where the seat weight is applied and the
location of the load sensor 54 with sensor support column 63
(Spec. ¶¶ 0005, 0006, 0018, and 0046; Figs. 4-7 (Figs. 4 and
5(A) reproduced below for reference)).
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

7

Figure 4 of the present application shows a schematic side view of a
prior art seat weighing device

Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

8

Figure 5(A) of the present application shows an exploded perspective
view of a prior art seat weighing device

2. The Specification discloses that the described invention utilizes
prior art components shown in Figs. 4-7, but changes the
position of pin bracket 25 relative to base pin 31. Instead of
positioning base pin 31 between pin bracket 25 and load sensor
54 with sensor support column 63 (see Fig. 4 reproduced above),
the disclosed invention has the pin bracket 25 for applying the
weight of seat 3 positioned between the base pin 31 and the load
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

9
sensor 54 with sensor support column 63 (Spec. ¶¶ 0039 and
0040; Fig. 1(B) (reproduced below for reference)).

Figure 1(B) of the present application shows a schematic side view of a
disclosed invented seat weighing device

Cooper
3. Cooper discloses a vehicle passenger weighing apparatus 40.
The Cooper apparatus 40 includes a lever 70 rotatably attached
at one end by a support pin 66 to a support mount 60 with a
second end having a spherically shaped part 78 that contacts a
support elastomer body 45. Between the support pin 66 and the
spherically shaped part 78, a second support pin 46 connects a
central portion of the lever 70 to the weight of a seat frame 42.
(Cooper, col. 1, ll. 4-6; col. 2, ll. 5-7, 31-43; Fig. 2).
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

10
4. Cooper additionally discloses that a sensor 80, such as a strain
gauge, is mounted on a portion of lever 70 that is thinner than
the end attached to support mount 60. “The thinner dimension
. . . enables the . . . lever 70 to bend, and the sensor 80, in turn,
generates an output signal in response to the bending,” which is
caused by the weight of seat frame 42 (Cooper, col. 2, ll. 54-62).
5. Cooper further discloses that the second support pin 46 is fixedly
attached to seat frame 42 and also rotatably connected to a
central portion of lever 70 with a bushing 92 engaging the lever
70 and second support pin 46 (Cooper, col. 2, ll. 34-40, 50-53;
Fig. 2).
6. Cooper discloses that seat frame 42 includes a load surface 44,
and that two levers 70 are attached to seat frame 42 with separate
second support pins 46 (Cooper, col. 2, ll. 18-20, 34-40; Fig. 2).
Aoki ’325
7. Aoki ’325 discloses a vehicle seat weighing apparatus having
load sensors that are positioned between the seat and the vehicle
body. The seat is connected to the vehicle body by arm
mechanisms connected at one end to the vehicle body and at the
other end to the seat (Aoki ’325 Abstract).
Aoki ’444
8. Aoki ’444 discloses a further vehicle passenger weighing
apparatus 9. The Aoki ’444 apparatus 9 includes an arm 23
attached, so as to pivot, at one end to a pair of base plates 21a,
21a’ by a base pin 31. A pin bracket 25 transmits the weight of a
seat 3 to arm 23. The pin bracket 25 is attached to arm 23 by a
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

11
bracket pin 27. There is also an attachment between arm 23 and
a sensor plate 51 that is supported by a sensor support column
63. A load sensor 54 is attached to sensor plate 51 (Aoki ’444,
col. 1, ll. 6-11; col. 5, ll. 28-37, 46-65; Figs. 1 and 3(A)).
9. The Aoki ’444 disclosed structures shown in Figs. 1 and 3(A),
including identifying element numbers, are substantially
identical to the disclosed structures shown in the present
application in Figs. 4 and 5(A).
10. Aoki ’444 further discloses that the “seat weight measuring
apparatus [is] capable of decreasing manufacturing cost and
assembly cost and capable of weight measurement with higher
precision” (Aoki ’444, col. 1, ll. 46-50).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Pending claims, during examination, are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Prater, 415 F.2d
1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969).
More specifically, a claim term is construed as having “the ordinary
and customary meaning . . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary
skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective
filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). It is the use of the words in the context of
the written description, and their use as customarily ascribed by those skilled
in the relevant art that accurately reflects both the “ordinary” and the
“customary” meaning of the terms in the claims. Ferguson
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

12
Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover Res., Inc. v. Mega Sys., LLC, 350
F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
[The claims] are part of “a fully integrated written instrument,”
. . . consisting principally of a specification that concludes with
the claims. For that reason, claims “must be read in view of the
specification” . . . . [T]he specification “is always highly
relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term.”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal citations omitted).
Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a
claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by the court
in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is
only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’ something disclosed in the
reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or
‘fully met’ by it.”
Obviousness
Obviousness is a question of law premised from underlying factual
determinations. Therefore, to support a legal conclusion of obviousness in
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner is required to establish
factual bases. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The
required factual determinations are set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (stating that 35 U.S.C. § 103 leads to three basic
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

13
factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior art, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the level of skill in the art).
Addressing what is acceptable combinations of elements from prior
art, the U.S. Supreme Court explains:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. AG
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., Inc., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative–a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The operative
question in this “functional approach” is thus “whether the improvement is
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions” (id.).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection Based on Cooper
Claims 1, 2, and 4
Appellants do not separately argue rejected claims 1, 2, and 4 (Ans. 3-
7), but, instead, contend these claims are patentable because Cooper fails to
teach the claim 1 limitation for “a sensor plate and a sensor support . . . in
communication with the resilient member” (App. Br. 10, 11; Reply Br. 3, 4
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

14
(emphasis added)). We, accordingly, select independent claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s “interpretation of the resilient
member and the sensor plate is not reasonable because the lever 70 of
Cooper has been interpreted to be two different and distinct claim elements:
the resilient member and the sensor plate” (App. Br. 10, 11). Disagreeing,
the Examiner responds:
Appellant [sic] is narrowly interpreting the claims to entail
limitations that they do not contain. There is no language in the
claims that precludes the sensor plate from being integral with
the resilient member. To the contrary there is language
requiring the sensor plate to be “in communication with the
resilient member.” The claim language does not recite or refer
to acceptable or unacceptable forms of “communication.”
(Ans. 25). Indeed, claim 1 does not recite any modifying limitation for the
“in communication” relationship, and Appellants do not contend that there is
any further modifying limitation. Appellants also do not assert any
Specification disclosure for construing the recited “in communication”
relationship.
Based on the record, we are not persuaded that Appellants have shown
that the Examiner erred in concluding that the disputed limitation reads on
Cooper lever 70.
A broad reasonable interpretation for the recited “in communication”
relationship does not exclude Appellants’ contention that the sensor plate
and resilient member can be “two different and distinct claim elements” that
are somehow interconnected (App. Br. 10, 11; Reply Br. 3, 4). However, a
broad reasonable interpretation also encompasses coverage of an integrated
structure including both a resilient member and a sensor plate as a combined
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

15
structure incorporating both elements. An integrated structure incorporating
a resilient member and a sensor plate results in having these elements be “in
communication.” Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner properly
interprets claim 1 by indicating that it “does not recite . . . acceptable or
unacceptable forms of ‘communication’” (Ans. 25). We, accordingly,
concur with the Examiner that claim 1 reads on the Cooper lever 70 that
includes “integrally formed . . . discrete elements” (id.). These integrally
formed discrete elements comprise first and second portions of the Cooper
lever 70 with the second portion having a thinner dimension where the
attached sensor 80 reacts to bending caused by applied seat weight (FF 4).
For the foregoing reasons, we concur with the Examiner that the claim
1 disputed limitation reads on Cooper. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under § 102(b) of claim 1, and also the rejection of
claims 2 and 4 that fall with claim 1.
Claims 5 and 6
A.
These claims, rejected under § 102(b) (Ans. 7), are not separately
addressed by Appellants. Instead, Appellants assert that they are patentable
because Cooper fails to teach the “require[d] . . . pin bracket rotatably
supported by a base pin along with the other features of claim 1 from which
they depend” (App. Br. 11). This requirement asserted by Appellants is
recited in claim 5, whereas claim 6, which depends from claim 5, further
narrows the covered structure by reciting “the pin bracket transmits the seat
weight to a bracket pin.” Appellants do not raise the claim 6 recited
structure as a disputed limitation.
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

16
Claims 5 and 6 both depend from claim 1. However, not raised by
Appellants is the dependence of both claims 5 and 6 from claim 4.
Therefore, both claims 5 and 6 also incorporate every limitation recited in
claim 4. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4. Claim 4 covers “a pin bracket adapted to
be in communication with the seat and the resilient member.”
According to the Examiner, “Cooper teaches the device of claim [4],
. . . a pin bracket (46 figure 2) adapted to be in communication with the seat
and the resilient member” (Ans. 7). Because we find Cooper element 46 to
be a second support pin 46 interconnecting a central portion of lever 70 with
a seat frame 42 (FF 3), we concur with the Examiner that the claim 4
covered pin bracket reads on Cooper second support pin 46.
The Examiner, however, disparately finds that Cooper “92 figure 2”
teaches the pin bracket of claims 5 and 6 (Ans. 7). We find Cooper element
92 to be a disclosed bushing 92 that provides a rotatable connection between
second support pin 46 and lever 70 (FF 5). In the context of either combined
claims 4 and 5, or claims 4, 5, and 6, we are not persuaded by the
Examiner’s finding the Cooper second support pin 46 and also the Cooper
bushing 92 to be alternatively both the claim 4 pin bracket and the claims 5
and 6 pin bracket.
B.
Based on the record, we will affirm the rejection of dependent claim 5
under § 102(b) as anticipated by Cooper. Specifically, we concur with the
Examiner that the claim 4 covered pin bracket reads on Cooper second
support pin 46. Since claim 5 depends from claim 4, we do not concur with
the Examiner that the claim 5 pin bracket reads on Cooper bushing 92.
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

17
Instead, we deduce that the claim 5 pin bracket also reads on the Cooper
second support pin 46.
Claim 4 recites that the “pin bracket [is] . . . in communication with
the . . . resilient member.” Claim 5 recites that “the pin bracket is rotatably
supported by a base pin.” The Examiner finds that the claim 5 covered base
pin reads on Cooper support pin 66 (Ans. 7) that rotatably attaches lever 70
to support mount 60. We concur in these findings with the Examiner (FF 3).
We deduce that the combination of the Cooper second support pin 46
with lever 70, and the Cooper lever 70 being rotatably mounted about
Cooper support pin 66, consequently results in the claim 5 recited “pin
bracket . . . rotatably supported by a base pin” reading on Cooper.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the rejection of claim 5
under § 102(b) as anticipated by Cooper.
C.
We concur with the Examiner that the claim 4 covered pin bracket
reads on Cooper second support pin 46, which interconnects Cooper lever 70
and seat frame 42 (FF 3). We, however, do not concur with the Examiner
that this pin bracket as covered by claim 6 pin somehow alternatively reads
on Cooper bushing 92. Further, we do not concur that a bracket pin as first
recited in dependent claim 6 would somehow read on the Cooper second
support pin 46; while the base claim 4 covered pin bracket, which is distinct
from the claim 6 bracket pin, would also read on the same Cooper second
support pin 46 (Ans. 7). The claim 6 recited bracket pin and pin bracket are
disparate structures having distinctly different claimed functions.
Consequently, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under §
102(b), because we do not concur with the Examiner that Cooper teaches the
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

18
combined claims 4, 5, and 6 covered pin bracket and bracket pin. See
Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 11
Appellants do not separately argue claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 rejected
under § 102(b) (Ans. 8-12), but, instead, contend these claims are patentable
because Cooper fails to teach the claim 7 limitation for an arm rotatably
supported between side plates by a base pin (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 1-3).5
We, accordingly, select independent claim 7 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 7 covers “a base having two side plates” and “an arm rotatably
supported by and interdisposed between the side plates of the base via a base
pin.” The Examiner contends these limitations read on a Cooper floor plan
16 including two support mounts 60 (Ans. 8). Further, the Examiner finds
the recited arm to read on the Cooper lever 70, and the recited base pin to
read on Cooper support pin 66 (Ans. 8, 9).
Appellants acknowledge that Cooper lever 70 is supported by a
support mount 60 with a support pin 66, but argue that Cooper lever 70 is
not supported by two support mounts 60 (App. Br. 6). Disagreeing, the
Examiner contends that Cooper teaches one lever 70 being supported by one
support mount 60 with a support pin 66 and that this lever 70 also is
supported through a Cooper seat frame load surface 44 to a second support
mount 60 (Ans. 15). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s contention is an

5 Appellants additionally argue that Cooper fails to teach “a pin bracket . . .
in communication with the arm via a bracket pin” (App. Br. 7, 8). We do
not address this argument because we will not sustain the rejection of
representative claim 7 on other grounds.
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

19
“admission that the lever 70 is supported by [a] . . . side plate [with a]
connection through the load surface 44, and not the pin 66” and that this
admission “confirms that Cooper fails to disclose the claimed invention”
(Reply Br. 2).
Based on the record, we do not concur with the Examiner’s contention
that a Cooper lever 70 is supported by two support mounts 60 with a support
pin 66. Instead, we find two Cooper levers 70 being supported by separate
support mounts 60 using separate support pins 66, and that each Cooper
lever 70 also is interconnected by an attaching second support pin 46 to a
seat frame 42, which includes a load surface 44 (FF 6). Therefore, we find
that each of the two Cooper support pins 66 interconnects one lever 70 to
one support mount 60, not to two support mounts 60. We do not find the
Examiner’s argument persuasive that, if one support mount 60 were
removed, the Cooper device would no longer operate, because this
consequence does not address the claim 7 limitation for an arm to be
supported by two side plates “via a base pin.”
For the foregoing reasons, we do not concur with the Examiner that
the addressed claim 7 disputed limitation reads on Cooper. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 102(b) of claim 7, and also
will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 8, 10, and 11.
Obviousness Rejection Based on Cooper and Aoki ’325
Claims 12 and 13
Appellants collectively argue the rejection of claims 12 and 13 by
asserting that Aoki ’325 fails to cure previously contended Cooper
deficiencies for anticipating base independent claim 7. In particular,
Appellants assert that Aoki ’325 does not cure Cooper’s deficiency with
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

20
respect to “teach[ing] or suggest[ing] an arm rotatably supported by the side
plates of the base via a base pin or a pin bracket in communication with the
arm via a bracket pin” (App. Br. 8, 9). The Examiner responds by
substantively repeating the arguments that were asserted for why Cooper
anticipates claim 7 (Ans. 22, 23).6
Aoki ’325 teaches a vehicle seat weighing apparatus having load
sensors positioned between a seat and a vehicle frame (FF 7). The Aoki
’325 load sensors are not attached to a sensor plate. The Examiner relies on
Aoki ’325 for teaching an arm with side plates (claim 12; Ans. 13), and a
leaf spring positioned between the arm side plates (claim 13; Ans. 13, 14).
The Examiner relied on Aoki ’325 teachings that do not address Appellants’
contended Cooper deficiencies. Furthermore, the Examiner does not
contend that Aoki ’325 teachings in any way combine with Cooper teachings
to render any claim 7 covered element to be obvious under § 103.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not concur with the Examiner that
claim 7 reads on Cooper, or reads on Cooper as modified by Aoki ’325.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 12 and 13 under § 103.
Obviousness Rejection Based on Cooper and Aoki ’444
Claim 3
Based on the record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 3 under § 103(a).

6 The Examiner specifies these arguments as being directed to claim 12.
Since Appellants assert the same arguments for patentability of both claims
12 and 13, we understand the Examiner as intending to argue the same
response to Appellants’ identical assertions.
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

21
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness, but merely contend that Aoki ’444 fails to cure
previously-noted deficiencies of Cooper with respect to anticipating base
independent claim 1. In particular, Appellants assert that Aoki ’444 does not
cure Cooper’s deficiency with respect to “teach[ing] a resilient member and
a sensor plate that are two distinct and separate elements” (App. Br. 12).
For the reasons indicated previously, we are not persuaded by these
arguments. We will sustain the rejection of base independent claim 1, and
since Appellants have not argued as to claim 3 covered elements, we will
also sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3.
Claim 9
Based on the record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 9 under § 103(a).
Appellants contend that Aoki ’444 does not cure Cooper as an
anticipation reference against base independent claim 7. In particular,
Appellants assert that “Cooper does not teach or suggest an arm rotatably
supported by the side plates of the base via a base pin or a pin bracket in
communication with the arm via a bracket pin” (App. Br. 8). Based on the
record, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 7 under § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cooper (See
supra pp. 18, 19). However, Aoki ’444 discloses a vehicle passenger
weighing apparatus 9 that has an arm 23 attached for pivoting at one end to a
pair of base plates 21a, 21a’ by a base pin 31 (FF 8). Aoki ’444 further
discloses a pin bracket 25 that transmits the weight of a seat 3 to arm 23
through a pin bracket 25 attached by a bracket pin 27 to arm 23 (id.).
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

22
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ bald assertion, without
evidence or explanation, that “Aoki ’444 does not cure [Cooper’s]
deficiencies” (App. Br. 8). After all, the subject Cooper deficiencies arise
from claim 7 recited limitations, and claims “are part of ‘a fully integrated
written instrument,’ . . . consisting principally of a specification that
concludes with the claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal citation
omitted). In this integrated context, Appellants’ Specification discloses
substantively identical structure elements to those of Aoki ’444 (FF 1 and 9).
Moreover, claim 7 recites structure limitations for the same named elements
as disclosed by Aoki ’444, e.g., side plates, pin bracket, bracket pin, and
base pin.
Aoki ’444 further discloses that the taught “seat weight measuring
apparatus [is] capable of decreasing manufacturing cost and assembly cost
and capable of weight measurement with higher precision” (FF 10). Both
the Cooper and Aoki ’444 devices are in one field of endeavor. Aoki ’444
discloses that the taught apparatus provides incentives, i.e., “decreasing
manufacturing and assembly costs” with higher measurement precision,
which an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as addressing real world
market forces by improving other devices, e.g., the Cooper device. Further,
we do not find in the record any evidence or argument that variation of
Cooper with Aoki ’444 would preclude achieving a predictable result.
Accordingly, we conclude that modification of Cooper with Aoki ’444
would provide a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
For the foregoing reasons, we deduce that the combination of Cooper
with Aoki ’444 under § 103 renders both claim 9 and base independent
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

23
claim 7 unpatentable. Accordingly, we will sustain the current rejection of
dependent claim 9 under § 103 over Cooper and Aoki ’444.

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection for
claims 6-8 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cooper
and Aoki ’444.
Aoki ’444 was cited as a sole § 103(a) reference in rejecting then
pending claims 1-13, with the acknowledgement that “Aoki [’444] does not
explicitly disclose wherein the device is configured so that the weight of the
seat is applied between the at least one support point and the sensor point.”
The Examiner thus addressed this matter:
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious
to one skilled in the art to switch the position at which the
weight of the seat acts, from one pin to the other. Such a
change would be a mere rearrangement of parts.
The suggestion or motivation for doing so would be to
change to apply a different force at the sensor position. This
would allow the invention to adjust the force applied at the
sensor position to be within an ideal range.
(Non-final Office action, mailed Dec. 20, 2005, p. 3). Appellants argued
that “there has been no motivation or suggestion from the prior art to move
the pin bracket” (Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review, filed Jul. 24, 2006,
p. 5). This Aoki ’444 § 103(a) rejection was withdrawn in a Notice of Panel
Decision from Pre-Appeal Brief Review mailed Nov. 3, 2006.
As addressed above, we will sustain the rejection under § 102(b) of
independent claim 1 as being anticipated by Cooper (see supra pp. 13-15).
Claim 1 covers a device “configured so that the weight of the seat is applied
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

24
between the . . . support point and the sensor support.” Therefore, based on
the record, we find Cooper teaching structures for application of seat weight,
e.g., pin bracket positioning, between a resilient member, or arm, support
point, or base pin, and a sensor support, or load sensor. Further, as
addressed above with respect to our sustaining the rejection of dependent
claim 9 under § 103(a) over Cooper and Aoki ’444, we conclude from the
record that modifying Cooper with Aoki ’444 provides a predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions (see supra pp. 21-
23). Accordingly, we are persuaded there is motivation to modify Aoki ’444
by moving the pin bracket to be between the arm support and the load sensor
as taught by Cooper.
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cooper and Aoki ’444. Claim 6 depends from claims 1, 4, and 5, and recites
having “the pin bracket transmit[] the seat weight to a bracket pin.”
We find, based on the record, that Aoki ’444 teaches a pin bracket 25
attached to an arm 23, i.e., a resilient member, by a bracket pin 27, and the
weight of a seat 3 transmitted by the pin bracket 25 to the arm 23 (FF 8).
Additionally, we deduce that Aoki ’444 pin bracket 25, bracket pin 27, and
base pin 31 in conjunction with arm 23 consistently are read on by claims 4
and 5 limitations for the same named element structures.
For the forgoing reasons, dependent claim 6 is obvious under § 103(a)
over Cooper and Aoki ’444.

Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

25
Claims 7, 8, and 10-13
Claims 7, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cooper and Aoki ’444. Independent claim 7 is
reproduced supra at p. 3, and all of claims 8 and 10-13 depend from claim 7.
As addressed above, we will sustain the rejection under § 103(a) of
claim 9, which depends from claim 7, as being unpatentable over Cooper
and Aoki ’444 (supra pp. 21-23). Accordingly, for the reasons indicated
previously, independent claim 7 is obvious under § 103(a) over Cooper and
Aoki ’444. Further, dependent claims 8 and 10-13 are likewise obvious for
similar reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 2, and 4 under § 102(b), because Cooper is read on by the claim 1 sensor
support mounted sensor plate in communication with a resilient member,
and also the claim 5 pin bracket.
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6,
7, 8, 10, and 11 under § 102(b), because Cooper is not read on by the claim 6
pin bracket with bracket pin, nor by the claim 7 arm rotatably supported
between two side plates by a base pin.
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12
and 13 under § 103(a), because there is not a proper combination of Cooper
and Aoki ’325 that renders base independent claim 7 covered subject matter
obvious.
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

26
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
3 and 9 under § 103(a), because Cooper renders claim 3 unpatentable, and
Cooper and Aoki ’444 collectively render claim 9 unpatentable.

DECISION
We have affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5 and 9.
We have not sustained the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6-8
and 10-13, which rejections are reversed. However, we have entered a new
ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) for claims 6-8 and 10-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cooper and Aoki ’444.

FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b), which provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
Furthermore, this section provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment
of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims
so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the examiner . . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record . . . .
If Appellants elect prosecution before the Examiner and this does not
Appeal 2009-002308
Application 10/822,706

27
result in allowance of the application, abandonment, or a second appeal, this
case should be returned to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for
final action on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request for
rehearing thereof.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

babc

FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
SUITE 500
3000 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON DC 20007