Philipp Bendele et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 24, 201914678117 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/678,117 04/03/2015 Philipp BENDELE 49_173 1532 23400 7590 10/24/2019 POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC 12040 SOUTH LAKES DRIVE SUITE 101 RESTON, VA 20191 EXAMINER BRINDLEY, TIMOTHY J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/24/2019 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): dposz@poszlaw.com mailbox@poszlaw.com tvarndell@poszlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PHILIPP BENDELE and ADRIAN PHILIPP ____________ Appeal 2018-0091941 Application 14/678,117 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BRADLEY B. BAYAT, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 We reference herein the Specification (“Spec.,” filed April 3, 2015), Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Nov. 13, 2017), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed May 21, 2018), Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 1, 2018), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 27, 2018). Appeal 2018-009194 Application 14/678,117 2 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7–11, 13, 21–29, 31, and 32.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to an aircraft seat device. Spec. 1, ll. 4–5. Claims 1 and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An aircraft seat comprising: a load bearing frame comprising two form-lock elements, which are embodied as rails and are oriented in a seat direction parallel to each other; and a plurality of structural components that are fastened at the load-bearing frame, wherein: at least one of the plurality of structural components is tool-lessly mounted and demounted to and from the load- bearing frame using at least one manually actuable fastening element; the at least one manually actuable fastening element arranges the at least one of the structural components at the load-bearing frame; the at least one of the plurality of structural components is coupled to the load-bearing frame merely by the form-lock elements and by the fastening element; the at least one of the plurality of structural components is implemented as a central kinematics (CK) unit, tool-lessly 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Recaro Aircraft Seating GmbH & Co. KG. Appeal Br. 4. 3 Appellant canceled claims 2–6, 12, 14–20 (see Appeal Br. 29–31), and the Final Office Action and Answer do not set forth a rejection for claims 30 and 33. See, e.g., Ans. 3. Appeal 2018-009194 Application 14/678,117 3 mounted and demounted to and from the load-bearing frame, the CK unit comprising a CK frame formed from a plurality of profile elements, the CK frame being pivotable and implementing a plurality of sitting and recumbent positions of an aircraft seat encompassing the aircraft seat device; and at least a further one of the plurality of structural components is embodied as a seat pan, and is tool-lessly mounted to the CK frame. Appeal Br. 29 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS4 Claims 1, 7–11, 13, and 22–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 23, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wagner and Westerink (US 2011/0148173 A1, pub. June 23, 2011). Claims 1, 7, 21, 24, 31, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kitamoto (US 6,227,489 B1, iss. May 8, 2001) and Westerink.5 4 The Examiner withdrew the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 7–11, 13, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, and 30 as unpatentable over Wagner (US 2004/0066073 A1, pub. Apr. 8, 2004) and Gossage (US 4,105,347, iss. Aug. 8, 1978), and of claims 1, 25, and 26 as unpatentable over Wagner and Walchle (US 8,756,955 B2, iss. June 24, 2014). Ans. 3–4. 5 We treat the omission of claim 7 in the heading of the rejection at page 7 of the Final Office Action as inadvertent, because the Examiner rejects this claim in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 8. Appeal 2018-009194 Application 14/678,117 4 ANALYSIS Indefiniteness In rejecting claims 1, 7–11, 13, and 22–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the Examiner directs our attention to the following limitations in claim 1: (1) “a plurality of structural components that are fastened at a load-bearing frame” and (2) “at least a further one of the plurality of structural components is embodied as a seat pan, and is tool-lessly mounted to the CK frame.” See Final Act. 2. The Examiner interprets the language “fastened at the load-bearing frame” as requiring all structural components, including the seat pan, to be directly mounted to the load-bearing frame. See Ans. 4 (“[t]here does not appear to be an interpretation that would reasonably allow for one to think that stating that the seat pan is / could be attached by one or more intervening elements which are not the seat pan”). The Examiner takes the position that it is “unclear from the figures and the specification[] how the seat pan may be considered to be tool-lessly mounted directly to both the rails and the CK frame,” as required by claim 1. Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 4 (“There does not appear to be support for the seat pan being fastened at the load-bearing frame as well as the CK frame.”). Appellant argues that the Examiner has “added the word ‘directly’ into the claim language” and contends that the seat pan could be indirectly tool-lessly mounted and demounted to and from the rails and also tool-lessly connected to the CK frame. Appeal Br. 26. We agree with Appellant. Here, Appellant’s Specification defines the phrase “fastened at the load-bearing frame” to mean that “the structural components[] are directly or indirectly coupled with the load-bearing frame” and that “a structural component is connected to the load-bearing frame by way of one or several structural components that are arranged in-between.” Spec. 2, ll. 3–8. Appeal 2018-009194 Application 14/678,117 5 Consistent with this definition, the Specification, including the drawings, describes structural components as indirectly coupled to the load-bearing frame through other structural components. For example, the Specification describes that fourth structural component 10 (i.e., a headrest) is “tool-lessly mounted to the second structural component [i.e., a backrest] and thus to the load-bearing frame 10” via central kinematics unit 12. See Spec. 10, ll. 14–16; see also id. at 8, ll. 15–24, Figs. 2, 10. The Specification also describes that third structural component 16 (i.e., a seat pan) is tool-lessly mounted to first structural element 12 (i.e., a central kinimetics unit), which is connected to the load- bearing frame. See id. at 9, ll. 10–14, Fig. 1. Claim 1 does not narrow the definition of the phrase “fastened at the load-bearing frame,” as set forth in the Specification, to require direct coupling. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the Specification that structural components “fastened at the load-bearing frame,” as recited in claim 1, are directly or indirectly coupled to the load-bearing frame. See Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding that the test for definiteness is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.”). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7– 11, 13, and 22–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Obviousness Over Wagner and Westerink We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the Appeal 2018-009194 Application 14/678,117 6 combination of Wagner and Westerink, as proposed by the Examiner, does not render the claimed invention obvious. Appeal Br. 13–15. In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Wagner and Westerink, the Examiner finds that Wagner teaches substantially all of the limitations recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 5. Directing attention to Figures 1–4 of Wagner, the Examiner finds that Wagner’s elements 20, 30, 60, 48, 50, 58 teach the claimed plurality of structural components; elements 22, 60, and 70 teach the claimed CK frame; elements 42 and 44 teach the claimed rails; element 20 teaches the claimed seat pan; and pins between elements 60 and 42 teach the claimed fastening element. Id. The Examiner acknowledges that Wagner does not teach that “the at least one fastening element is manually actuable such that the CK unit is tool-lessly mounted to and demounted from the load-bearing frame/two rails merely by the form-lock elements and fastening element” and that “the seat pan is tool-lessly mounted to the CK frame.” Id. However, the Examiner finds that Westerink “teaches a manually actuable fastening element in the form of a ball lock pin (Westerink, [F]ig. 2: 18)[,] which allows seat elements to be tool-lessly mounted and demounted on an aircraft seat.” Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes that [i]t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time that the invention was filed, to modify the connection between the CK frame and rails of Wagner, as well as the CK frame and seat pan, to be manually releasable as a simple substitution of one known item for another to yield a predictable result, i.e.[,] more easily replacing damaged parts, installing the seat, or dismantling the seat. Id. Westerink describes a seat pan assembly for use with a passenger seat for an aircraft or other types of seats. Westerink ¶ 14. Seat pan assembly 10 Appeal 2018-009194 Application 14/678,117 7 is releasably coupled to seat frame 68 by releasably coupling the seat pan assembly’s coupling retainer 16 to the seat frame’s coupling projection 56. Id. ¶ 24. Specifically, coupling retainer 16 is locked into an engaged position by locking device 18, such as a quick release pin. Id. ¶ 26, Figs. 2, 3, and 5. Other quick release fasteners, such as locking cotter pins, ball lock pins, and S-hooks, could be used instead of a quick release pin for locking device 18. Id. The quick release fastener enables seat pan assembly 10 to move forward and aft as needed when a passenger seat moves between reclined and upright positions. Id. ¶ 17. At best, Westerink describes a seat pan that is tool-lessly mounted to a CK frame, but Westerink does not describe a CK frame that is tool-lessly mounted and demounted to and from the load-bearing frame. The Examiner takes the position that Westerink’s quick release pin for locking a position of a seat pan assembly could be used to modify the connection between Wagner’s CK frame and rails as a simple substitution of one known item for another to yield a predictable result. Yet, the proposed modification relates to mounting Wagner’s stiffening rods 60 (characterized by the Examiner as the claimed CK frame) to base frame 40 (characterized by the Examiner as the claimed load-bearing frame) and/or Wagner’s stationary legs 22 (characterized by the Examiner as the claimed CK frame) to floor rails 44 (characterized by the Examiner as the claimed load-bearing frame). See Wagner Fig. 2. Wagner describes, for example, that stationary legs 22 are pivotally coupled to the floor rails 44. Id. ¶ 22. Wagner further describes that stiffening rods 60 are hinged on base frame 40 at one end and at the other end are coupled to stiffening segments 58, which ensure that the moving axle does not deform undesirably in a crash. Id. ¶ 23. Given the structural and functional differences between the connections at issue in the Appeal 2018-009194 Application 14/678,117 8 Wagner and Westerink devices, the Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the connection between Wagner’s CK frame and rails with Westerink’s locking device 18 as a simple substitution of one element for another with predictable results. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and dependent claims 23, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wagner and Westerink. Obviousness Over Kitamoto and Westerink The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kitamoto and Westerink suffers similar deficiencies described above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wagner and Westerink. In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Kitamoto and Westerink, the Examiner finds that Kitamoto teaches substantially all of the limitations recited in claims 1 and 21. See Final Act. 7–8. Directing attention to Figures 8 and 9B of Kitamoto, the Examiner finds that Kitamoto’s elements 33, 40, 141, and 37a teach the claimed plurality of structural components; elements 38, 37a, 141, and linkages connecting 60 with 11a teach the claimed CK frame; elements 11a and 11b teach the claimed rails; and element 33 teaches the claimed seat pan. Id. The Examiner acknowledges that Kitamoto does not teach that “the at least one fastening element is manually actuable such that the CK unit is tool-lessly mounted to and demounted from the load-bearing frame merely by the form-lock elements and fastening element” and that “the seat pan is tool-lessly mounted to the CK frame.” Id. at 7; see also id. at 8. However, the Examiner finds that Westerink “teaches a manually actuable fastening element in the form of a Appeal 2018-009194 Application 14/678,117 9 ball lock pin (Westerink, [F]ig. 2: 18)[,] which allows seat elements to be tool-lessly mounted and demounted on an aircraft seat.” Id. at 7–8; see also id. at 9. The Examiner concludes that [i]t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time that the invention was filed, to modify the connection between the CK frame and load-bearing frame, and seat pan and CK frame of Kitamoto to be manually releasable as a simple substitution of one known item for another to yield a predictable result, i.e.[,] more easily replacing damaged parts, installing the seat, or dismantling the seat. Id. at 8; see also id. at 9. However, in light of the structural and functional differences between the connections at issue in the Kitamoto and Westerink devices (compare Kitamoto, Fig. 9 with Westerink, Fig. 2), the Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the connection between Kitamoto’s CK frame and load-bearing frame with Westerink’s locking device 18 as a simple substitution of one element for another with predictable results. For example, Kitamoto shows at Figure 6 that bracket 63 connects a structural element with pipe 11a, and it is unclear that a quick release pin would be a simple substitute. See Kitamoto, col. 7, ll. 22–23. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 21, and dependent claims 7, 24, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wagner and Westerink. Appeal 2018-009194 Application 14/678,117 10 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7–11, 13, 22–29 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 7–11, 13, 22–29 1, 23, 27, 29 103 Wagner and Westerink 1, 23, 27, 29 1, 7, 21, 24, 31, 32 103 Kitamoto and Westerink 1, 7, 21, 24, 31, 32 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation