Ex Parte Zouzal et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2019

14437435 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/437,435 04/21/2015 Winsen C. Zouzal
34007 7590 05/22/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. I LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
LEAR52061PUSA 2690
EXAMINER
BRINDLEY, TIMOTHY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WINSEN C. ZOUZAL, ASHFORD A. GALBREATH,
ASAD S. ALI, TERRY O'BANNON, GERALD S. LOCKE,
JENNIFER BADGLEY, THOMAS S. HICKS,
WALTER T. CICHOCKI, and RICHARD L. HARBAUGH1
Appeal 2018-003869
Application 14/437,435
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, LEE L. STEPINA, and BRENT M. DOUGAL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Winsen C. Zouzal Won et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Lear Corporation is identified as the real party-in-interest in this
application. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-003869
Application 14/437,435
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a seat having a pivotal thoracic
support structure. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A seat comprising:
a seatback including a support surface, wherein the
seatback extends in an upright direction from a seat bottom;
a thoracic support structure pivotally attached to the
seatback adjacent a top surface of the support structure for
movement between a first position and a second position,
wherein a bottom surface of the support structure is positioned at
a height above the seat bottom in the upright direction in order to
align the bottom surface with at least a portion of a user's
thoracic region; and
an actuator disposed between the support surface and the
support structure, wherein actuation of the actuator pivots the
support structure from the first position to the second position,
wherein in the second position the bottom surface moves away
from the seatback so the thoracic support structure lifts and
supports at least a portion of the thoracic region of the user's
spme.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 2011/0241403 Al,
issued Oct. 6, 2011) in view of Schurg (US 2007/0228790 Al, published
Oct. 4, 2007).
2
Appeal 2018-003869
Application 14/437,435
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Yamaguchi discloses a seat back having a
support surface that supports the thoracic region of the spine of a user, but
fails to disclose that the thoracic support is pivotally attached to the
seatback, such that it can be actuated between a first and second position by
an actuator. Final Act. 2. The Examiner turns to Schurg, and finds that
Schurg discloses a support structure pivotally attached to a seatback for
movement between first and second positions. Id. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify the Yamaguchi support to be
pivotable, so that it can be adjusted to a desired position based on actuation
by a user, "in order to increase the comfort experienced by the seated user."
Id.
Appellants argue that the support member of Yamaguchi is
particularly designed so as to maintain a specific contour of the spine, so
that, during a crash, lumbar support is provided by a forward convex
contour, and thoracic support is provided by a rearward convex contour.
Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellants, modifying the Yamaguchi support
so that it is pivotable between first and second positions would alter the
positioning and curvature of the spine, as well as the positioning of the head
and neck relative to the spine, and would undermine the ability of the seat
and support to prevent head swing during a crash, as desired by Yamaguchi.
Id.
The Examiner responds that:
[ n Jothing in the combination ... hinders the ability of the
support structure of Yamaguchi to maintain a desired posture.
The addition of the actuator of Schurg, according to the
3
Appeal 2018-003869
Application 14/437,435
Examiner, simply allows the thoracic support to be moved to a
position which is more comfortable for the user.
Ans. 5. Appellants, in reply, point out that pivoting the Yamaguchi support
from one position to another would change the contour of the support
relative to the occupant, and provide an annotated version of Figure 5 of
Yamaguchi, reproduced below, to illustrate how the Yamaguchi support
would be positioned upon being pivoted to a second position. Reply Br. 3.
Yi~~n:::;u{~t~h~ f:"ijk ~{:~.:1~-H~i~.~~:~;0,,r.§}
P~~·o1:$:d .sti:;)p<.-.tr., ~~;; t~1t1dffi<:"~°1 ~l S.rhu{~€
Pictured above is an Appellants-annotated version of Figure 5 of
Yamaguchi, which is a schematic view of a vehicle seat as seen from the
seat width direction outer side. Yamaguchi 34.
Yamaguchi discusses that, in concert with employing a support to
maintain the lumbar vertebrae in a curved state, the relative position between
the support member and a headrest in the vehicle is to be adjusted "so that
the difference between a timing when the head portion of the occupant is
4
Appeal 2018-003869
Application 14/437,435
pressed against the headrest and a timing when the neck portion of the
occupant is pressed against a neck receiving portion ... is reduced."
Yamaguchi 11. In considering the annotated view of Yamaguchi Figure 5, it
appears doubtful that the support structure would, as professed by the
Examiner, maintain the desired posture of the occupant that is shown in
original Figure 5. In addition, it does not appear that the Examiner has taken
into account how the headrest might have to be repositioned, were the
occupant's posture conformed to the pivoted support structure.
Considerations would include whether, assuming that the appropriate
adjustment would be to pivot the headrest backward to approximately the
same degree as the support structure is pivoted forward, the occupant would
remain facing forward in the vehicle. Therefore, we agree with Appellants
that the pivoting of the Yamaguchi support member would likely lead to the
Yamaguchi structure not performing as intended.
As such, the reason to modify Yamaguchi advanced by the Examiner,
i.e., to increase comfort for the occupant, even if accomplished by the
modification, is strongly overshadowed by the apparent negative effect that
pivoting of the support structure in Yamaguchi would have on maintaining
occupant safety in the event of a crash, which is Yamaguchi' s main
objective.
We additionally note that, in attempting to demonstrate how
Yamaguchi is being interpreted as including a bottom surface of a support
structure that is aligned with a portion of a user's thoracic region, the
Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 5 of Yamaguchi, in which
a horizontal line is drawn through support 3 8 to reflect what the Examiner
regards as top and bottom surfaces of the support. Ans. 4. The position or
5
Appeal 2018-003869
Application 14/437,435
height at which the line is drawn arbitrarily divides the rearwardly convex
thoracic support section, termed a "chest receiving portion 40" in
Yamaguchi, such that a lower portion thereof is designated by the Examiner
as belonging to a "bottom surface" of the overall support, which bottom
surface aligns with a portion of a user's thoracic region, as required by claim
1. Yamaguchi, para. 51. Given that Yamaguchi characterizes support 3 8 as
including this chest receiving portion 40, which is curved so as to
correspond to and support the curved shape of the thoracic vertebrae, and,
separately, a lower, waist receiving portion 66 curved so as to correspond to
and support the curved shape of the lumbar vertebrae, the Examiner fails to
explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a
bottom surface of the Yamaguchi support would include a lower portion of
chest receiving portion 40 of support 38. Yamaguchi, paras. 51-54. In other
words, absent some sound technical reasoning to the contrary, the
Yamaguchi disclosure would appear to inform the person of ordinary skill in
the art that, were support 3 8 to be regarded as having upper and lower
portions, the dividing line between the portions would logically be where the
chest receiving portion and waist receiving portions meet.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and
14-20 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Schurg.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 14-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6