Ex Parte Grant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 13, 2017

13449440 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2017)

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. 13/449,440 04/18/2012 Robert Grant BOMBARDIER 15 1768 144190 7590 Karceski IP Law, PLLC 1717 K. Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER DEERY, ERIN LEAH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3754 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/18/2017 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): docket @ karceskiiplaw. com edinorma @ karceskiiplaw. com jkarceski@karceskiiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT GRANT and MARK MATHIEU Appeal 2015-003234 Application 13/449,440 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Robert Grant and Mark Mathieu (Appellants)1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action, dated March 13, 2014 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1, 3, 6-35, and 37^47.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Bombardier Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 4. 2 Claims 2, 4, 5, and 36 are cancelled. Br. 6-7. Appeal 2015-003234 Application 13/449,440 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to “layouts for an aircraft lavatory that provide features to accommodate a person with reduced mobility, such as a person in a wheelchair.” Spec. para. 2. Claims 1, 33, and 47 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. An aircraft lavatory, comprising: a first wall extending inwardly from a second wall; a third wall extending inwardly from the second wall, wherein the third wall is spaced apart from the first wall by a predetermined distance; a fourth wall connecting the first wall to the third wall, wherein the first wall, the second wall, the third wall, and the fourth wall together establish an enclosure encompassing a lavatory area; a countertop disposed adjacent to the first wall, extending along at least a portion of the first wall; a sink disposed at a position in the countertop, wherein the countertop defines an undercountertop recess free from obstructions; a toilet disposed adjacent to both the second wall and the third wall, wherein the toilet defines a toilet area that occupies a portion of the lavatory area and wherein the toilet defines a toilet axis bisecting the toilet; and a door extending from a first predetermined position on the third wall to a second predetermined position on the fourth wall such that the door defines an intersection between the third wall and the fourth wall, wherein a line extending substantially perpendicularly from a center point between the first predetermined position and the second predetermined position 2 Appeal 2015-003234 Application 13/449,440 defines the access axis disposed at the access angle with respect to the toilet axis; wherein, when a person in a wheelchair enters the lavatory area in a forward-facing direction along the access axis, the countertop recess accommodates at least a portion of the person’s legs when the person in the wheelchair is positioned along the access axis, thereby permitting the person to transition from the wheelchair to the toilet by shifting the person’s body through the access angle, wherein the countertop recess is defined in part by a recess wall, wherein a leg space is defined between the recess wall and the toilet, and wherein the leg space accommodates at least a portion of the person’s legs therein when the person in the wheelchair is positioned along the access axis. Br. 39^40 (Claims App.). EVIDENCE The Examiner relied upon the following evidence in the Final Action: Rauch US 3,275,283 Sept. 27, 1966 Bittner US 5,678,883 Oct. 21, 1997 Leclercq US 2004/0003461 A1 Jan. 8, 2004 Kitade US 6,938,284 B2 Sept. 6, 2005 Cooper US 7,284,287 B2 Oct. 23, 2007 REJECTIONS The Final Action included the following grounds of rejection: 1. Claims 1, 3, 6-22, 24-27, 29, 33-35, and 37^17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cooper, Leclercq, and Bittner. 3 Appeal 2015-003234 Application 13/449,440 2. Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cooper, Leclercq, Bittner, and Kitade. 3. Claims 23 and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cooper, Leclercq, Bittner, and Rauch. ANALYSIS With regard to independent claims 1,33, and 47, the Examiner found Cooper discloses a lavatory substantially as called for in each of these claims, except that Cooper “does not provide a sink with a recess defined by a wall defining a leg space” and “fails to show a door extending from a first predetermined position on the third wall to a second predetermined position on the fourth wall.” Final Act. 2-3 (citing Cooper, Fig. 3), 7. The Examiner found Feclercq “teaches a toilet unit for a vehicle having a sink (6) with a counter top and a recess underneath.” Id. at 3 (citing Feclercq, Fig. 2). The Examiner determined it would have been obvious “to have provided the sink and counter top arrangement of Feclercq in the lavatory of Cooper so that a person in a wheel chair can be accommodated.” Id. The Examiner further found Bittner “teaches a lavatory having a door which is curved (66) which extends onto the third and fourth walls of the enclosure (see figure 3) from first and second predetermined locations.” Id. at 4. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious “to have provided a door spanning a comer so as to allow a person more room to enter into the lavatory, since a door located entirely on a sidewall might interfere with an aisle.” Id. 4 Appeal 2015-003234 Application 13/449,440 We agree with Appellants that even if the lavatory of Cooper were modified as proposed by the Examiner, the resulting configuration would not result in the subject matter of independent claims 1, 33, and 47. Br. 15-20. In particular, we fail to see how the modified lavatory of Cooper would result in an arrangement of the door, toilet, and sink as called for in each independent claim, such that: when a person in a wheelchair enters the lavatory area in a forward-facing direction along the access axis, the countertop recess accommodates at least a portion of the person’s legs when the person in the wheelchair is positioned along the access axis, thereby permitting the person to transition from the wheelchair to the toilet by shifting the person’s body through the access angle. The annotated figure of Cooper provided by the Examiner in the Final Action (Final Act. 5) fails to include the proposed modification to move the door from the fourth wall (as shown in Figure 3 of Cooper) to span the third and fourth walls, as claimed. Thus, the access axis drawn by the Examiner in this annotated figure is incorrect. In addition, were one to move the door, as proposed by the Examiner, to span the third and fourth walls, we fail to see how the person’s legs would be accommodated within a countertop recess to permit the person to transition from the wheelchair to the toilet. Due to the position and angle of sink 282 in relation to toilet 284, it appears that toilet 284 interferes with the user’s ability to position the user’s legs within the countertop recess, as required by the claims. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 33, and 47, and their dependent claims 3, 6-22, 24- 5 Appeal 2015-003234 Application 13/449,440 27, 29, 34, 35, and 37-46, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cooper, Leclercq, and Bittner. The remaining grounds of rejection of claims 23, 28, and 30-32 rely on the same unsupported finding that the lavatory of Cooper, as modified by Leclercq, and Bittner, results in the arrangement of the sink, toilet, and door as called for in independent claims 1, 33, and 47. Final Act. 7-8 (Examiner relying on Kitade to teach a toilet perpendicularly positioned on a wall and Rauch to teach a stowable hand rest). For the same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 28 as unpatentable over Cooper, Leclercq, Bittner, and Kitade and of claims 23 and 30-32 as unpatentable over Cooper, Leclercq, Bittner, and Rauch. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 6-35, and 37-47 is REVERSED. REVERSED 6