Ex Parte Eckenroth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 2016

12989071 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2016)

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. 08215/US _JOCA:0096 6692 EXAMINER BRINDLEY, TIMOTHY J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3636 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/989,071 02/22/2011 75576 7590 Johnson Controls, Inc. c/o Fletcher Yoder PC P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269 12/13/2016 Dirk Eckenroth 12/13/2016 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 DIRK ECKENROTH and HOLGER ROBKES Appeal 2014-007447 Application 12/989,071 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JILL D. HILL, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 4—7, 11, and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2014-007447 Application 12/989,071 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a structural part for a vehicle seat back rest. Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A structural part for a backrest of a vehicle seat, comprising at least one panel element, a reinforcement frame which has at least a first profile element and a second profile element and which runs substantially along an edge of the panel element, and a reinforcement element at least partially within a plane of the reinforcement frame, wherein the reinforcement element is connected to the panel element and to the reinforcement frame, the reinforcement element is connected to the reinforcement frame at only the first profile element, the reinforcement element extends, in the region of the first profile element, along 50 percent to 60 percent of the extent of the first profile element, the reinforcement element is configured to be connected to a belt retractor of a safety belt, a belt deflecting device of the belt retractor is connected to the first profile element, and the reinforcement element is configured to absorb forces which act between the belt retractor and the belt deflecting device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sharman US 5,829,831 Nov. 3, 1998 Gupta US 6,997,515 B2 Feb. 14,2006 Forster WO 01/89875 Nov. 29,2001 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta and Sharman. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta, Sharman and Forster. 2 Appeal 2014-007447 Application 12/989,071 OPINION In rejecting claim 1, the sole independent claim before us, the Examiner finds Gupta discloses a housing 140, regarded by the Examiner as the recited “reinforcing element.” Final Act. 2. Sharman is cited by the Examiner regarding the belt deflecting device. Id. at 3. The Examiner, without citing further evidence, accounts for the remaining differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter reflected in the limitations emphasized above, by stating that they are the product of “basic engineering principles.” Ans. 2—3. Even applying the basic engineering principles as the Examiner suggests, there is no indication in the record of why one skilled in the art would seek to modify Gupta’s housing 140 according to those principles. Gupta says little about the structure and purpose of housing 140. Gupta, col. 14,11. 37—39. On the record before us, only the Examiner suggests it would be suitable for Appellants’ “reinforcing” purpose. App. Br. 8—9. The Examiner then proposes to modify it so as to make it suitable for that purpose. There is no objective evidence of record to demonstrate that repurposing and completely reconstructing a seemingly different and unrelated component is not the product of hindsight reasoning. Reply Br. 2— 3. “[T]he precise language of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that ‘(a) person shall be entitled to a patent unless, ’ concerning novelty and unobviousness, clearly places a burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires it to produce the factual basis for its rejection of an application under sections 102 and 103.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967). As the Examiner has not shown unpatentability by preponderance of the evidence, the rejections cannot be sustained. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 3 Appeal 2014-007447 Application 12/989,071 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED 4