13122591 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2017)

Ex Parte Zekavica et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 16, 2017

13122591 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 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. 13/122,591 05/10/2011 Ornela Zekavica 113601-0502 1804 50659 7590 BUTZEL LONG, P.C. IP DEPARTMENT 41000 Woodward Avenue Stoneridge West Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 EXAMINER ABRAHAM, TANIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/18/2017 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): patent @ butzel. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ORNELA ZEKAVICA, DANIAL JAMES SAKKINEN, ANTOINE KMEID, YOUZHI XIONG, JOHN DAVID KOTRE, and CATHERINE M. AMODEO1 Appeal 2017-000512 Application 13/122,591 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—11, and 13—15, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We are persuaded by Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1,8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the combined 1 Appellants identify Johnson Controls Technology Company as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-000512 Application 13/122,591 teachings of Houston2 and Gamweidner3 do not teach or suggest “a tailor welded blank contoured into a seat back frame,” as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in claims 8 and 13. App. Br. 7—10; Reply Br. 1—4. The Examiner finds the adjustment part of Houston, comprising pieces 20 and 22, teaches “a tailor welded blank.” Ans. 2. Citing paragraphs 2 and 21 of Houston, the Examiner finds “it would be reasonable to determine that the adjustment part of Houston is a side member of the backrest.” Id. at 3. The Examiner finds Gamweidner teaches ‘“a seat back frame’ that has upper, lower, and side members, and that is bent at predetermined bending lines.” Id. at 2. The Examiner further finds, “[a]s a result of the substitution, Houston’s adjustment part, which is a tailor welded blank, would be shaped into a generally rectangular form having upper, lower, and side members.” Id. at 5. Although we agree with the Examiner that Houston teaches “a tailor welded blank,” we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that there is no evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that Houston discloses an adjustment device that is a side member of a vehicle seat back frame. Reply Br. 2—3. Instead, we agree with Appellants that Houston teaches a hinge plate adapted to be mounted on either a seat base or a seat back, or a steering column. Id. at 3 (citing Houston Figs. 1—4, Claim 5). We also agree with Appellants that “[tjhere is no reason that the person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the hinge plate of Houston so that it is shaped as a vehicle 2 Houston et al. (US 2008/0121776 Al; published May 29, 2008) (“Houston”). 3 Gamweidner et al. (US 6,761,412 Bl; issued July 13, 2004) (“Gamweidner”). 2 Appeal 2017-000512 Application 13/122,591 seat frame.” Id. at 4. We are further persuaded by Appellants’ argument that neither Houston nor Gamweidner, individually or collectively, teach or suggest “fabricating a tailor welded blank and then contouring the tailor welded blank such that it is ‘bent at predetermined bending lines.’” Id. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 13, as well as claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9—11, 14, and 15, which depend variously therefrom. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—11, and 13-15. REVERSED 3