Ex parte Wagner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 1999

08735228 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 1999)

Application for patent filed October 22, 1996. 1
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not binding precedent of the Board.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 PAUL N. WAGNER
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,2281
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before COHEN, ABRAMS and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
9 through 14, and from the refusal of the examiner to allow
claims 4 through 8 and 15, as amended subsequent to the final
rejection. These claims constitute all of the claims remaining
Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,228
The final rejection of claims 4 through 8 and 15 under 2
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, was withdrawn by the
examiner upon entry of the amendment after final (Paper No.
5), as acknowledged in paragraph (6) of the answer (Paper No.
9). The first page of Paper No. 5 reflects entry of the
amendment upon appeal, superseding the earlier indication in
an advisory action (Paper No. 6) of a denial of entry.
2
in the application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a vehicle seat and a
storage receptacle disposed under the seat. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claims 9 and 15, copies of which appear in the APPENDIX to
the brief (Paper No. 8).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 1,736,108 Nov. 19,
1929
Hines 5,096,249 Mar. 17,
1992
The following rejection is before us for review. 2
Claims 4 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hines in view of Anderson.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and response to
Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,228
In our evaluation of the applied documents, 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).
3
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
(Paper No. 9), while the complete statement of appellant’s
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos.
8 and 10).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the3
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through
Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,228
4
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claims 9 and 15 are each drawn to the
combination of a vehicle seat and a storage receptacle
disposed under the seat. Claim 9 addresses, in particular, a
feature permitting the receptacle to be movable between a
storage position and either a first loading position adjacent
the forward edge of a seating area or a second loading
position adjacent the
back edge of the seating area. Claim 15 sets forth, in
particular, a feature wherein the drawer runners mounting the
receptacle for sliding movement include a pair of relatively
slidable members, one of which is secured to an inner edge of
a corresponding side support supporting a seating area, with
the other being secured to a side member of the receptacle.
We certainly appreciate the relevance of the respective
teachings of Hines and Anderson. Hines (Fig. 4) addresses the
combination of a vehicle seat 12 and a container enclosure 16,
including brackets 82, 84 supporting structure for slidingly
fastening the enclosure beneath the seat, while Anderson (Fig.
Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,228
5
1) teaches a guide suspension for drawers of a filing cabinet,
in particular, that permits the drawers to be moved out of the
cabinet from either of the opposite sides thereof. However,
for reasons delineated, infra, we are of the opinion that this
evidence simply would not have been suggestive of the
examiner’s proposed modification.
Initially, we note that the examiner has not set forth in
the body of the rejection an explanation of the manner in
which the Hines vehicle container arrangement would have been
modified or altered by one of ordinary skill in the art to
thereby effect
the content of the claimed invention. Thus, we lack an under-
standing of the examiner’s specific basis for the conclusion
of obviousness. Nevertheless, it appears to us that any
alteration of the vehicle container arrangement of Hines, to
bring about a configuration as claimed, would require and
entail a major overhaul of the Hines arrangement to the extent
that the patentee’s anti-theft objective of an easily
accessible bar and lock arrangement positioned outboard and
Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,228
6
adjacent to the door of the vehicle would be defeated.
Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
expected to so substantially modify the Hines teaching that
its objective is defeated. For these reasons, the rejection
of appellant’s claims cannot be sustained.
In summary, this panel of the board has reversed the
examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,228
7
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,228
8
ICC/cam
Appeal No. 1999-0524
Application 08/735,228
9
Ken C. Decker
BAKER & DANIELS
205 W. Jefferson Blvd.
Suite 250
South Bend, IN 46601