Ex Parte Bryer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2016

13373973 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/373,973
7590
Paul Bogdon, Esq
2181 Battenkill Lane
Gibsonia, PA 15044
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/08/2011 Matthew D. Bryer
04/25/2016
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.
5404 2040
EXAMINER
BARFIELD, ANTHONY DERRELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW D. BRYER
Appeal2014-003710
Application 13/373,973 1
Technology Center 3600
Before SCOTT C. MOORE, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-11, and 13-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellant, "[ t ]his invention relates to an ergonomic seat
assembly for supporting a human body in correct posture to maintain proper
and healthy spine alignment." Spec. 1, 11. 8-9.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Matthew D. Bryer.
Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003710
Application 13/373,973
CLAHvIS
Claims 1 and 11 are the only independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. An ergonomical seat assembly for supporting a seated
human body in correct posture to maintain proper and healthy
spine, hip and pelvis alignment, comprising:
back panel means for supporting the back of a human
person in an upright sitting position;
side support means attached with said back panel means,
said side support means sized and shaped to fit under the arms of
the human person in a seated position with the back of the person
against the back panel means and for engaging the side of the
torso at the rib section of the human person in a seated position;
the said side support means including a pair of elongated
side support members, one each selectively attachable and
laterally, and upwardly, and downwardly moveably disposed on
opposite lateral side sections of said back panel means, each of
said side support members sized and shaped for engaging the side
of the torso of a human person in a seated position;
iumbar support means attached with said back panei
means and shaped and sized for snugly engaging the lower back
portion of a human person in a seated position, and contoured to
conform to the natural curvature of the spine of the human
person;
base panel means secured to said back panel means for
supporting a human person in a seated position;
hip support means attached with said base panel means
and sized, shaped, and sloped for engaging hip areas of a human
person for relieving pressure on the spine of the human person
from the weight of the human person's torso;
said back panel means, side support means, lumbar
support means, base panel means, and hip support means
constructed and arranged such that when a human person is
seated on said base panel means with the person's back against
said back panel means, and said side support means are in
2
Appeal2014-003710
Application 13/373,973
engagement with the sides of the person's torso and under the
arms of the person, and said lumbar support means in
engagement with the person's lower back and contoured to
conform to the natural curvature of the spine of the person, and
said hip support means in engagement with the person's hips and
relieving the pressure on the spine of the person from the weight
of the person's torso, and healthy spinal alignment is maintained,
toeing out and splaying of legs prevented, outward rotation of the
hips avoided, keeping the person's body in proper alignment to
effect correct and healthy posture.
Br. 12-13.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-11, 13, 14, and 16 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Solano. 2
2. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Solano in view of Pliska. 3
DISCUSSION
With respect to claims 1 and 11, we agree with Appellant that Solano
does not disclose a seat assembly as claimed. See Br. 5-10. Specifically,
we find that a preponderance of the evidence does not support the
Examiner's finding that Solano discloses a "lumbar support means attached
with said back panel means and shaped and sized for snugly engaging the
lower back portion of a human person in a seated position, and contoured to
conform to the natural curvature of the spine of the human person" as
required by claim 1. With respect to this limitation, the Examiner finds that
Solano discloses "lumbar support means ( 44) attached with said back panel
2 Solano, US 5,056,533, iss. Oct. 15, 1991.
3 Pliska, US 5,702,153, iss. Dec. 30, 1997.
3
Appeal2014-003710
Application 13/373,973
means that are shaped and sized 'snugiy' for engaging the lower back
portion of a human person in a seated position depending on how big or
small the user may be." Final Action 2. However, the claim requires that
the lumbar support is "contoured to conform to the natural curvature of the
spine of the human person." The Examiner does not explicitly address this
limitation and we are not persuaded that an element that snugly engages the
lower back is either expressly or inherently contoured to conform to the
natural curvature of the spine. Further, Solano does not explicitly describe
any element for lumbar support. Rather, elements 44 are either elongated
supported pads disposed vertically at the sides of the seat back or are
crescent shaped pads "attached to the front surface of back portion 14 at
either side of the patient's head." Solano Fig. 1, col. 4, 11. 23-25. Absence
from Solano of any claimed element negates anticipation.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 11 as anticipated by Solano is not adequately
supported. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11 as well as dependent claims 3-10 and 13-16.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejections of claims 1,
3-11, and 13-16.
REVERSED
4