Ex Parte GALBREATH et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2019

14560811 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/560,811 12/04/2014 Ashford Allen GALBREATH
34007 7590 01/07/2019
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. I LEAR CORPORATION
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
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.
LEAR54390PUS 7728
EXAMINER
ABRAHAM, TANIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/07/2019 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHFORD ALLEN GALBREATH
and RICHARD L. HARBAUGH 1
Appeal2018-004668
Application 14/560,811
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CAL VE, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
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. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). For the reasons explained below, we do
not find error in the Examiner's rejections of these claims.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections.
1 The Application Data Sheet dated December 4, 2014 identifies "Lear
Corporation" as assignee. Thus, in accordance with 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, we
understand "Lear Corporation" as being the Appellant. See also App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004668
Application 14/560,811
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "is directed to a thoracic region support
system for a seatback." Spec. ,r 1. Apparatus claims 1, 10, and 16 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. An air bladder assembly comprising:
an inflatable thoracic support bladder adapted to be
secured to a seatback, the inflatable bladder having a forward
surface and a rearward surface and comprising:
a center portion extending in an upright direction
and oriented to be positioned adjacent the seatback to
align adjacent a thoracic region of a user's spine;
a pair of side portions each disposed adjacent to
and connected with the center portion; and
a plurality of filaments extending between the
forward seating surface and the rearward surface of the
bladder in the center portion, whereby upon inflation the
center portion has a first stiffness that is greater than a
second stiffness of the pair of side portions to support the
user's spine along the center portion.
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Sekido et al.
Elrod et al.
Chew
us 4,920,591
US 7,234, 183 B2
US 2009/0236888 Al
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
May 1, 1990
June 26, 2007
Sept. 24, 2009
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chew and Elrod.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chew, Elrod, and Sekido.
2
Appeal2018-004668
Application 14/560,811
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16--20
as unpatentable over Chew and Elrod
Appellant argues claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 together. See App.
Br. 4--7. Appellant also presents separate arguments (together) regarding
claims 2, 9, 10, 16, and 17. See App. Br. 7-8. Accordingly, we select
independent claims 1 and 10 for review, with the remaining claims (i.e.,
claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11-14, and 16-20) standing or falling with their
respectively selected and grouped claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1
The Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Chew for disclosing
the limitations of claim 1, but acknowledges that although Chew discloses
connecting the forward and rearward central surfaces of a bladder together,
Chew does so via sheets P7-P9 and not via "a plurality of filaments" as
recited. See Final Act. 4--5 (citations to Chew omitted). "However, Elrod
teaches using a plurality of filaments instead of I-beam shaped support
members (which are similar to the sheets of Chew), for connecting opposing
surfaces of a bladder." Final Act. 5. The Examiner then identifies several
advantages discussed in Elrod for employing filaments and concludes that it
would have been obvious "to modify the bladder of Chew with a plurality of
threads in place of the plurality of sheets, as taught by Elrod" in view of
these benefits. 2 Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5. Consequently, because Chew
interconnects the forward and rearward surfaces of the bladder only via their
2 The Examiner makes clear that "the plurality of filaments ... would
replace the sheets of Chew." Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 5--6 (Elrod's
"filaments could be substituted for the sheets taught by Chew").
3
Appeal2018-004668
Application 14/560,811
respective "center portion," the Examiner states, "upon inflation the center
portion would have the first stiffness greater than the second stiffness of the
side portions to support a user's spine along the center portion." Final
Act. 5.
Appellant's Specification provides guidance as to the meaning of
"stiffness" as used therein, and as claimed. Paragraph 28 of Appellant's
Specification discusses one embodiment involving an "inflatable bladder
that is inflated to have different stiffness regions so that the center portion
has a higher stiffness or less forward travel resulting [in] a more stiff feeling
to the user than the side portions." Emphasis added; see also Ans. 3, 4.
Appellant, thus, associates higher stiffness with less forward travel of an
inflatable device. See Ans. 4. This is consistent with Paragraph 44 of
Appellant's Specification which states, "Stiffness is understood as the
resistance to deformation of an elastic medium when acted upon by a steady
force." 3 In other words, when a bladder is inflated ("acted upon by a steady
force") "stiffness" is "the resistance to deformation" of the bladder.
Paragraph 52 of Appellant's Specification provides additional guidance
regarding the role of filaments in the creation of stiffness stating "[t ]he
filaments 88 in the center portion 72 increase the stiffness of the center
portion 72 because the filaments 88 constrain the inflation and deformation
of the center portion 72." From the above guidance provided by Appellant's
Specification, one skilled in the art would understand that "stiffness" means
a resistance to deformation, such as when a portion of a bladder is
constrained against too much inflation.
3 Appellant contends that one skilled in the art would understand "stiffness"
as "the 'resistance to deflection."' Reply Br. 2.
4
Appeal2018-004668
Application 14/560,811
Regarding Chew, Appellant acknowledges that "Chew further
discloses that the slip sheet 'P7 functions to limit the bulging of the inflated
cushion.' (see Chew i-f[0042].)." App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3; see also Ans. 3.
However, Appellant argues, "[s]ince Chew is a cushion with a single
inflatable chamber, even though the center region, or the low lumbar region
may have a different bulge/contour, the pressure and stiffness on both the
side and center regions would be the same." App. Br. 6 (emphasis added).
This, "single inflatable chamber" arrangement, however, is exactly the same
as how Appellant describes their device, i.e., "bladder 66 is essentially one
single chamber and airflow throughout the bladder 66 is not restricted by the
filaments 88." Spec. ,r 50. Thus, regarding "pressure," there is merit to
Appellant's contention that the internal "pressure" "on both the side and
center regions would be the same" in Chew' s inflatable device. App. Br. 6.
This equality of pressure would also be the same in Appellant's inflatable
device. However, regarding "stiffness," the relative "stiffness" between the
center and side regions in Chew would not be the same due to Chew's
centrally located internal sheets which, as acknowledge by Appellant above,
limit Chew's bulging. This also is the same in Appellant's device. Hence,
Appellant's contention that the "stiffness" between Chew's center and side
regions would be the same is not consistent with Appellant's understanding
of how Chew operates or how the claim term "stiffness" is to be interpreted
in light of Appellant's Specification.4 See supra.
4 Appellant asserts, "[t]he Examiner's interpretation deprives 'stiffness' of
its plain and ordinary meaning as used in the claims." Reply Br. 2
(emphasis added). However, Appellant is silent as to how the Examiner's
interpretation of this term is inconsistent with how it is used in Appellant's
Specification.
5
Appeal2018-004668
Application 14/560,811
Appellant further states, "Appellant respectfully disagrees that
forward travel and stiffness are necessarily related or synonymous." App.
Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2. However, Appellant does not address the
passages in their own Specification, which states otherwise. See, e.g., Spec.
,r,r 28, 44, 52. In summation, we do not fault the Examiner for employing a
claim term that is consistent with how it is used and described in Appellant's
Specification.
Appellant further argues that modifying Chew would render Chew's
device "inoperable for its intended purpose." App. Br. 6; see also Reply
Br. 3. Appellant's argument is premised on having "fibers located
differently than the slip sheets to limit the forward travel." App. Br. 6.
However, as explained by the Examiner, Elrod's filaments "would replace
the sheets of Chew." Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 5---6 (discussing the
substitution of Elrod's filaments for Chew's sheets). In other words, the
Examiner is not advocating that Elrod's filaments be "located differently"
than where Chew's sheets are located, as Appellant argues. Consequently,
because Appellant's premise is faulty, we are not persuaded that modifying
Chew in the manner stated by the Examiner would render Chew "inoperable
for its intended purpose." See supra.
Appellant further contends that "even if slip sheets (P7, P8, and P9)
... are replaced with a line of filaments, ... it would not change the overall
stiffness of the center portion [ofJ the seat in Chew." Reply Br. 2-3. The
Examiner is not seeking to change the stiffness of the center portion of
Chew, instead, the Examiner is setting forth a different manner by which to
render the center portion stiff (i.e., employ filaments rather than sheets). See
Final Act. 4---6.
6
Appeal2018-004668
Application 14/560,811
Appellant also contends, "Elrod doesn't teach or suggest threads of
different lengths to form contours" and "Elrod teaches away from contoured
support." Reply Br. 3. The Examiner did not rely on Elrod for different
length filaments and forming contours. Instead, the disclosure of different
lengths (i.e., contours) comes from Chew's disclosure of sheets P7 thru P9
which are described and illustrated as having different widths. See Chew
,r,r 42--44, 53, 70, Figs. 1-6; see also Ans. 5---6 (discussing Elrod's
substituted filaments "wherein the lengths of the filaments would correspond
to the lengths set forth by [Chew's] sheets"). Appellant does not make clear
why Elrod's replacement filaments would not have similar lengths.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 obvious over Chew and Elrod.
Claim 10
Independent claim 10 recites that the plurality of filament fibers are
"spaced apart in the upright and lateral directions to form a mesh pattern."
Appellant contends that replacing Chew's sheets with Elrod's filaments
"would not achieve" the recited mesh pattern. App. Br. 7. Appellant's
argument is not persuasive because Chew' s sheets P7 thru P9 are vertically
spaced from each other in the center region of Chew' s bladder. See Chew
Figs. 1, 3, 5; see also Ans. 6. Replacing each of these vertically spaced
sheets ( each sheet extending horizontally) with Elrod' s filaments would
result in vertically spaced tiers of filaments, with each tier itself consisting of
spaced filaments. Appellant does not explain how this arrangement fails to
result in fibers that are "spaced apart in the upright and lateral directions to
form a mesh pattern" as recited.
7
Appeal2018-004668
Application 14/560,811
Appellant again discusses "adding more fibers to Chew that occupy a
volume or area greater than the slip sheets." App. Br. 7; see also Reply
Br. 3. However, this argument is not persuasive because the Examiner is
silent about adding fibers to areas beyond the areas already designated by
Chew's sheets.
Claim 10 further recites employing fibers having a "length such that a
side inflated thickness of the support bladder is greater than the center
inflated thickness." Appellant contends, "neither Chew nor Elrod discloses
that the side portions have different thickness than the center portion." App.
Br. 8. The Examiner, on the other hand, addresses Chew's center portion
having sheets P7 thru P9 replaced with Elrod's filaments noting that "the
inflated thickness of the center portion is limited by a filament fiber length."
Final Act. 8-9. In other words, the expansion of Chew' s center portion is
constrained whereas the expansion of Chew's side portions are not, hence,
the inflated thicknesses of Chew's bladder would vary. Accordingly,
Appellant does not explain how replacing Chew's sheets with Elrod's
filaments ( of similar length) is in error, or how the center portion of Chew's
inflated bladder would not otherwise be limited by the length of the filament,
the same as in Appellant's device.
In summation, and based on the record presented, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 as
being unpatentable over Chew and Elrod. We sustain their rejection.
The rejection of claims 4 and 15
as unpatentable over Chew, Elrod, and Sekido
Appellant does not address this rejection in either their Appeal Brief
or their Reply Brief. Accordingly, we are not appraised of any error by the
8
Appeal2018-004668
Application 14/560,811
Examiner in making this rejection. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 4 and 15 as unpatentable over Chew, Elrod, and Sekido.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9