Ex Parte Harden

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 2017

12556112 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 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. 12/556,112 09/09/2009 Matthew J. Harden H1091777US01 1907 16625 7590 03/23/2017 Honda Patents & Technologies North America LLC 21001 State Route 739 Raymond, OH 43067 EXAMINER MUSTAFA, IMRAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2017 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): hpt_uspto@ahm.honda.com cliff_vaterlaus@hpt.honda.com hiroshi_hoshino @hpt.honda.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHEW J. HARDEN Appeal 2015-006089 Application 12/556,112 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Matthew J. Harden (Appellant) appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 2—5 and 20-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart-Smith (US 2003/0098661 Al, pub. May 29, 2003) and Shiozaki (US 2002/0176223 Al, pub. Nov. 28, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2015-006089 Application 12/556,112 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21. A modular electronic automobile seat controller for use with an associated vehicle seat having a vehicle seat frame, comprising: a main control module fixedly mountable to the vehicle seat frame, the main control module having a length LI and comprising: a first surface; and, at least one manually actuated electronic seat control that controls a first associated electronic seat device; a first expansion module comprising: a first surface; and, at least one manually actuated electronic seat control that controls a second associated electronic seat device; a first male bus connector having a length L2, wherein L2 is less than LI; a first opening that defines a first female bus connector that receives the first male bus connector to form an electronic mating connection between the main control module and the first expansion module; and, wherein one of: (1) the first male bus connector extends from the first surface of the main control module and the first opening is formed in the first surface of the first expansion module; and, (2) the first male bus connector extends from the first surface of the first expansion module and the first opening is formed in the first surface of the main control module. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Stewart-Smith and Shiozaki disclose or suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 21 and 27. See Final Act. 2-4, 6—8. In particular, the Examiner finds that Steward-Smith discloses “a main control module fixedly mounted to the vehicle seat frame, the main control module having a length LI, and comprising: a first surface; and, at least one manually actuated electronic seat control that controls the 2 Appeal 2015-006089 Application 12/556,112 first electronic seat device.” Id. at 3. In support of this finding, the Examiner quotes “[pjaragraph 35 ‘These devices include a reading light module 12, lumbar module 13, recline actuator driver and sensor module 14, the seat controller module 15, the keypad module 16, PED power port 17, largest actuator driver and sensor module 18 and an audio/video module 19’” and explains that “[t]hese devices are manually actuated” because the user adjusts the seat himself. Id. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that Shiozaki discloses “a first male bus connector having a length L2, wherein L2 is less than LI.” Id. at 4. Appellant contends that the proposed modification would render Stewart-Smith unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. See Appeal Br. 14. In support of this contention, the Appellant explains that: connecting the various modules of Stewart-Smith together using a male bus connector having a length less than the length of the keypad 16 would require the connected modules to be in very close proximity and next to each other. Doing so with respect to various modules of Stewart-Smith would be impractical to a skilled artisan. For example, if the leg rest actuator 18 were to be connected to the keypad 16, either the keypad 16 would need to be positioned by the leg rest actuator 18 (making it inconvenient for a user to use the keypad 16) or the leg rest actuator 18 would need to be positioned on the arm of the chair by the keypad 16 (which would render the leg rest actuator 18 useless as a leg rest actuator). Id. (citing Stewart-Smith Fig. 3,135; In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (modification of prior art is not obvious if proposed modification would render the prior art device being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose); MPEP 2143.01 (V).). The Examiner does not respond to this argument. See generally, Ans. Moreover, Appellant’s argument is persuasive. Given that the only module 3 Appeal 2015-006089 Application 12/556,112 in Stewart-Smith that is manually actuated is the keypad 16 as discussed supra, the proposed modification would require movement of the other modules such that they would be rendered unsatisfactory for their intended purpose. In a manner similar to that explained in the leg rest actuator example argued by Appellant supra, movement of the reading light module, lumbar module, recline actuator driver and sensor module, and the seat controller module would also position these modules such that they could not perform their intended purpose. Furthermore, the Examiner does not explain why movement of the PED power port and audio/video module would not also render these modules unsuitable for their intended purpose. Accordingly, the Examiner’s reasoning lacks rational underpinning. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21 and 27, and claims 2—5, 20, 22—26, and 28—35, which depend from either claim 21 or claim 27. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—5 and 20—35 is REVERSED. REVERSED 4