Ex Parte Arefi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

13152667 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/152,667 06/03/2011
28415 7590 05/12/2016
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
695 KENMOOR S.E.
P. 0. BOX 2567
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-2567
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Majid Arefi
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.
83174238 7388
EXAMINER
DUNN, DAVID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 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):
ptomail@priceheneveld.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAJID AREFI, SHAWN ANTHONY DIXON,
MICHAEL MEDORO, JONATHAN ANDREW LINE,
KHALED A YY ASH, JAMES CREIGHTON,
V ANJA CEMALOVIC, DANIEL FERRETTI, and
ROBERT MOORE
Appeal2014-003820
Application 13/152,667
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
MARK A. GEIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 This appeal is related to Appeal 2014-004286 (U.S. Patent Application No.
13/152,653). App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003820
Application 13/152,667
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "generally relates to a vehicle seat back
that includes support members having an integrated recliner heart. The
vehicle seat back efficiently relays load forces to the frame of a vehicle,
thereby minimizing weight and size of the vehicle seat back." Spec. i-f 1.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of
the claims on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A vehicle seat back comprising:
first and second support members each having a central
web and a rear wall extending therefrom;
a seat base disposed below the first and second support
members; and
a recliner heart operably connecting the seat base with the
first and second support members, wherein a shear center of the
first and second support members extends along an inside comer
connection of the central web and the rear wall of the first and
second support members and into the seat base.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Saberan US 2004/0113481 Al June 17, 2004
Ogawa US 7 ,540,563 B2 June 2, 2009
Ishijima US 7,731,292 B2 June 8, 2010
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ishijima and Ogawa.
Claims 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ishijima, Ogawa, and Saberan.
2
Appeal2014-003820
Application 13/152,667
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-6 as unpatentable over Ishijima and Ogawa
Independent claim 1, and hence dependent claims 2---6, recites a "shear
center," and particularly that it "extends along an inside comer" of a support
member. It is not disputed that the location of a "shear center" "depends
only on the [cross-sectional] geometry and is independent of the loading" on
the object. App. Br., Evidence App., Ex. A, p. 6-14.
The Examiner finds that Ishijima discloses a vehicle seat back
teaching the limitations of claim 1, except for the claimed location of the
"shear center." Final Act. 4. According to the Examiner:
due to the very similar geometry between the cross sections of
the backrests of the current invention (shown on the left below)
and Ishijima (shown on the right below), the shear center load
path of Ishijima may be in the inside comer of the central web.
If the shear center load path of Ishijima is not located at the
inside comer of the central web, it is likely close; and as such, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the
change the geometry slightly such that the resulting location of
the shear center load path would be at the inside comer (See
Ishijima, Column 4, lines 4 7-52).
Final Act. 2 (emphasis added).
Appellants' Figure 8C and Ishijima Figure 3 are reproduced below:
3
Appeal2014-003820
Application 13/152,667
.'-::;
... ~···~.···
Figures 8C (Appellants) and 3 (Ishijima) above are the comparative
cross-sectional images of Appellants' and Ishijima's vehicle seat back
support members referred to in the quote above.
It is well settled that where "the claimed and prior art products are
identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove
that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the
characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255
(CCP A 1977). However, the Examiner fails to explain how or why the
foregoing comparative cross-sectional images are "identical or substantially
identical" to each other. Instead, it is apparent that there are geometric
differences between the two cross-sections and the Examiner provides no
reason as to why these differences can be disregarded. 2 The Examiner does
2 It is understood by the Examiner that "Appellant submits Exhibit Bin an
attempt to show that similar geometry does not necessarily correlate with the
location of the shear center." Ans. 5. Appellants' Exhibit B does not depict
Ishijima's cross-section and hence is not indicative that Ishijima's shear
center is actually located elsewhere. However, Exhibit B is indicative that
4
Appeal2014-003820
Application 13/152,667
not indicate why these differences in geometric cross-section would not
warrant a different location of Ishijima's shear center than as claimed. In
other words, (a) because the location of a "shear center" is based "only on
the geometry" of the cross-section (see supra); (b) because there are
geometric differences between Appellants' cross-section and Ishijima's
cross-section; and, ( c) because Appellants have shown that changes in cross-
section affect the location of the shear center, it appears the Examiner
resorted to speculation in rendering this rejection. This is particularly the
case in view of the Examiner stating, "the shear center load path of Ishijima
may be in the inside comer of the central web" and, if not "located at the
inside comer of the central web, it is likely close." Final Act. 2 (emphasis
added).
The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual
basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies
in its factual basis .... Likewise, we may not resolve doubts in
favor of the Patent Office determination when there are
deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases
supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness.
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Thus, by speculating as
to where the shear center in Ishijima may lie, the Examiner has not made the
initial factual findings required to demonstrate a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 1.
changes in cross-sectional geometry will result in changes in the location of
the shear center.
5
Appeal2014-003820
Application 13/152,667
As if in the alternative, 3 the Examiner acknowledges that "lshijima
fails to disclose" a "shear center" that "extends along an inside comer" and
the Examiner relies on Ogawa for disclosing "a shear center of the vehicle
seat back member [that] is disposed proximate an inside comer." Final Act.
4. However, the Examiner's reliance on Ogawa is not persuasive that the
geometry disclosed in Ogawa renders a "shear center" where the Examiner
states (Ogawa is actually silent as to a "shear center").4 Final Act. 4. Like
Ishijima, the Examiner fails to address Ogawa's specific cross-sectional
geometry before concluding (speculating) that Ogawa's "shear center" "is
disposed proximate an inside comer." Final Act. 4. In summary, the
Examiner fails to "articulate[] reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1---6 as unpatentable over Ishijima and Ogawa.
The rejection of claims 7-20
as unpatentable over Ishijima, Ogawa, and Saberan
Similar to independent claim 1 discussed supra, independent claims 9
and 17 (and hence dependent claims 7, 8, 10-16, and 18-20) also recite "a
shear center that extends along an inside comer" of the support member.
3 The Examiner does not concede "that the shear center may be inherent to
Ishijima." Ans. 6.
4 The Examiner relies on Ogawa figures 6A and 6B (Final Act. 4) which
depict a shear force applied to back frame 60. Ogawa's back frame 60 has a
tubular U-shape with side supporting parts 61/62 and lower parts/plates 66-
69 attached thereto. Ogawa 3:46---61; see also Fig. 3.
6
Appeal2014-003820
Application 13/152,667
The Examiner relies upon the additional teachings of Saberan to reject
these claims. Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner does not employ
Saberan in a manner that might cure the defect of the combination of
Ishijima and Ogawa discussed supra. In other words, the Examiner's
additional reliance on Saberan fails to disclose or suggest a shear center
located as recited in accordance with parent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7-20 as
unpatentable over Ishijima, Ogawa, and Saberan.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
7