David Woodhouse et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 11, 2019

14813470 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2019)

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. 14/813,470 07/30/2015 David Woodhouse 83543957 5649 121691 7590 10/11/2019 Ford Global Technologies, LLC/ King & Schickli, PLLC 800 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 200 Lexington, KY 40503 EXAMINER BATTISTI, DEREK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3734 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/11/2019 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): laura@iplaw1.net uspto@iplaw1.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID WOODHOUSE and BONGHOON LUKAS CHUNG ____________________ Appeal 2019-002360 Application 14/813,4701 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 20–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. According to Appellant, the invention relates “to a detachable tote bag system for a motor vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 1. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-002360 Application 14/813,470 2 1. A detachable tote bag system for a motor vehicle, comprising: a vehicle seat; a tote bag receiver on said vehicle seat, said tote bag receiver including a shelf, a first magnet fastener located vertically upward on the receiver from the shelf, and at least one mounting post projecting upward from said shelf; and a detachable tote bag releasably held by said tote bag receiver, said detachable tote bag including a second magnet fastener and at least one mounting socket on a bottom of the tote bag and adapted for being received over the at least one mounting post projecting upward from the shelf when said tote bag is held by said receiver. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rothkop et al. (US 2008/0252111 A1, pub. Oct. 16, 2008) (hereinafter “Rothkop”), Cho (US 8,905,472 B2, iss. Dec. 9, 2014), and Van Ert et al. (US 5,855,310, iss. Jan. 5, 1999) (hereinafter “Van Ert”); and II. Claims 3 and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rothkop, Cho, Van Ert, and Bergh (US D425,474, iss. May 23, 2000). ANALYSIS Rejection I We have carefully reviewed the record, including Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and the Examiner’s Final Office Action and Answer. Appeal 2019-002360 Application 14/813,470 3 Based on our review, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 20 is in error. Thus, we sustain the rejection. In the rejection, the Examiner relies on Rothkop’s seat back 14, carrier 92, and bag 82 to disclose the claimed vehicle seat, vehicle seat’s tote bag receiver with shelf, and detachable tote bag, respectively. Final Action 2; see, e.g., Rothkop Fig. 3. Specifically, the Examiner proposes to replace Rothkop’s hooks 71 (on bag 82) and clips 77 (on seat back 14), which are in the claimed location of the first and second magnet fasteners, with Cho’s magnets. Final Action 2–3. The Examiner further relies on Van Ert’s indentation 32 (on the bottom of storage container 10) and projection 34 (on vehicle floor 36) to disclose the claimed socket and post, and proposes to use Van Ert’s indentation 32 on the bottom of Rothkop’s bag 82, and to use Van Ert’s projection 34 on Rothkop’s “shelf.” Final Action 3–4; see, e.g., Van Ert Fig. 2. Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because Van Ert teaches away from the proposed combination. Appeal Br. 10–13. In particular, Appellant argues that Van Ert explicitly teaches mounting a storage container to the side wall of a motor vehicle instead of behind a seat in order to avoid any interference of the storage container with the rearward deployment of the seat. Consequently, . . . Van Ert . . . explicitly teaches away from the present invention wherein the tote bag is releasably held by the tote bag receiver on the vehicle seat (see current claim 1). Id. at 11. Based on our review of each of the references in its entirety, we do not agree with Appellant that, when considered in their entireties, the references teach away from the proposed combination. For example, even if Appeal 2019-002360 Application 14/813,470 4 Van Ert may discourage one from modifying Van Ert such that Van Ert’s storage container 10 mounts to seat back 18 instead of side wall 20, when one of ordinary skill considers and begins with the disclosures of Rothkop, in which bag 82 releasably attaches to seat back 14, neither Rothkop nor Van Ert teaches away from using Van Ert’s indentation 32 and projection 34 with Rothkop’s arrangement. Thus, based on the foregoing, Appellant does not persuade us of error, and, therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 7, and 20, which Appellant does not argue separately. Further, although Appellant includes additional arguments regarding claims 9, 10, and 17, Appellant argues these claims under the same heading as claim 1, and, thus, because we sustain claim 1’s rejection, these claims fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv) (“Each ground of rejection contested by appellant must be argued under a separate heading. . . . When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, and 17. Rejection II Appellant does not argue separately against the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 21–23, but, instead relies on Bergh’s failure to remedy the deficiency in claim 1’s rejection. Appeal Br. 14. Inasmuch as we sustain Appeal 2019-002360 Application 14/813,470 5 claim 1’s rejection, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 21–23. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–3, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 20–23. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, 20 103 Rothkop, Cho, Van Ert 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 17, 20 3, 21–23 103 Rothkop, Cho, Van Ert, Bergh 3, 21–23 Overall Outcome 1–3, 7, 9, 10, 17, 20–23 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED