Ex parte Wittman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 9, 1999

08371511 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 9, 1999)

Application for patent filed January 11, 1995. 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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte THOMAS E. WITTMAN
____________
Appeal No. 98-1531
Application No. 08/371,5111
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before CALVERT, ABRAMS, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-10, which constitute all of the
claims of record in the application.
The appellant's invention is directed to a seat assembly
for limiting forward excursion of the head of a forward-facing
Appeal No. 98-1531 Page 2
Application No. 08/371,511
seat occupant. The claims before us on appeal have been
reproduced in an appendix to the Brief.
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Horan 4,301,983 Nov. 24,
1981
Serber 5,244,252 Sep. 14,
1993
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Serber in view of Horan.
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
All of the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Serber in view of Horan. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See
Appeal No. 98-1531 Page 3
Application No. 08/371,511
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
modify a prior art reference or to combine reference teachings
to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227
USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the
requisite motivation must stem from some teaching, suggestion
or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not
from the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal,
Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434,
1052 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
The objective of the appellant’s invention is to provide a
seat for vehicles such as aircraft which reduces the head
excursion of the occupant in high impact crashes. As
manifested in claim 1, the sole independent claim, the
invention comprises a seat assembly having a frame, a seat back
mounted to the frame, a seatpan, means for mounting the seatpan
Appeal No. 98-1531 Page 4
Application No. 08/371,511
to the frame for pivotal movement with respect to the seat back
when the seat assembly is subjected to an inertial load of
predetermined magnitude, and means for mounting a seat belt to
the seat assembly at a point above the horizontal plane through
the point where the seatpan and the seat back meet. The
examiner has taken the position that Serber discloses all of
this structure except for the point of attachment of the seat
belt, a feature which is taught by Horan and would have been
obvious to add to the Serber seat “since it would provide
obvious protection to the passengers [sic] back” (Answer, page
4). We do not agree, for the reasons explained below.
Serber is directed to the problem of reducing the
“submarining” of the body of an occupant of a vehicle in the
event of a front end collision, which occurs
[s]ince a person’s lower body has little or no
contact and friction force with the seat . . . there
is a tendency for the legs and lower body of the
passenger to continue forward unrestrained and with
the momentum which the person had immediately prior
to the crash (column 1, lines 40-44).
Serber solves this problem by providing a seat cushion which
can pivot forwardly and upwardly with respect to the seat back
when subjected to the forward momentum of the passenger’s body
Appeal No. 98-1531 Page 5
Application No. 08/371,511
(Figures 3A-3C). A shoulder belt 44 is disclosed which “has an
upper end 46 coupled to vehicle 31 proximate the roof or side
wall and a lower end 47 coupled by a mounting flange 48 to the
floor of the vehicle” (column 5, lines 5-8). It is clear that
Serber does not disclose or teach mounting the seat belt “to
said seat assembly” or “at a point above the horizontal plane
through the point where the seatpan and seat back meet,” both
as required by claim 1.
Horan is directed to a seat for use in aircraft which
repositions the body of the occupant to improve G-load
tolerance during high acceleration flight (column 1, lines 13-
15). The essence of the Horan invention is a means for
rotating the seat upwardly and moving the occupant’s legs
toward his/her chest when high acceleration forces are
anticipated (Figures 1 and 2). Disclosed in this reference is
a seat lap belt 30 that is attached at either side of the seat
10 to secure the lower torso of the pilot “through quick-
release buckles 31 coupled to both sides of the torso harness
suit 26" (column 3, lines 20-23).
We agree with the appellant that there would have been no
suggestion to combine the references in the manner proposed by
Appeal No. 98-1531 Page 6
Application No. 08/371,511
the examiner. Serber is very specific in stating that the
shoulder belt disclosed (there is no lap belt) is attached to
the floor and the roof or side wall of the vehicle; it is not
attached to the seat assembly. Nor is the Serber belt attached
at its lower end, where a lap belt also conventionally would be
attached if it were present, at a point above the horizontal
plane where the seatpan and the seat back meet. Considering
that Serber wants very specific motions occur to the seat
occupant upon deceleration in order to prevent submarining (see
Figures 3A-3C), absent any teaching in the reference or other
evidence to the contrary, it is speculative to assume that
these motions, which are the crux of Serber’s invention, would
result if the disclosed belt were replaced with one attached in
the manner required by the appellant’s claim 1. The examiner
seeks to justify the proposed modification by offering the
conclusion that it would provide obvious protection to the
passenger’s back. Such a teaching is not found in either
reference, however, nor is evidence offered in support of it,
and therefore from our perspective it also is based upon
speculation.
Appeal No. 98-1531 Page 7
Application No. 08/371,511
We therefore fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or
incentive in either reference which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the Serber seat by
attaching the seat belt to the seat assembly rather than to
other parts of the vehicle, and to locate the mounting point
above the horizontal point where the seatpan and the seat back
meet, rather then on the floor of the vehicle. The mere fact
that the prior art structure could be modified does not make
such a modification obvious absent some suggestion of the
desirability of doing so. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221
USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find that to be lacking here.
From our perspective, the only suggestion for making the
proposed modification is found in the luxury of the hindsight
accorded one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure.
This, of course, is not a proper basis for establishing
obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The teachings of the applied prior art fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject
matter recited in claim 1. We therefore will not sustain the
Appeal No. 98-1531 Page 8
Application No. 08/371,511
rejection of claim 1 or, it follows, of claims 2-10, which
depend therefrom.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
NEA/jlb
Appeal No. 98-1531 Page 9
Application No. 08/371,511
Mary Y. Redman
The Boeing Company
P.O. Box 3707 MS 13-08
Seattle, WA 98124-2207