Ex Parte Matthey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2017

13289660 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 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.
13/289,660 11/04/2011 Cristina Matthey 508897 1043
53609 7590 08/31/2017
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
DUNN, DAVID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRISTINA MATTHEY, THOMAS FLEHMIG, and
ANDREAS ULRICHS
Appeal 2016-005265
Application 13/289,6601
Technology Center 3600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 5—8, which are all of the pending claims. Claims
1—4 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-005265
Application 13/289,660
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a seat-back
frame for a vehicle seat. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 5, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
5. A Seat-back frame for a vehicle seat, comprising:
a transversely extending frame region;
two vertically extending frame regions extending
vertically, such that the seatback is of a U-shaped form;
wherein a first and a second profile are provided which
form respective ones of the vertically extending frame regions
and wherein there is provided a deep-drawn sheet-metal part
which forms the transversely extending frame region, the deep-
drawn sheet-metal part having flanges for connecting on the
first and second profiles by bonding and at least one of the first
and second profiles is a hollow profile which is formed from a
single sheet as a flangeless hollow profile such that at least one
part of the first and second profiles formed from the single
sheet has a closed hollow profile by joining opposed end
regions of the single sheet.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 5—8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fredrick (US 5,671,976, issued Sep. 30, 1997) and either
Cape (US 3,209,432, issued Oct. 5, 1965) orNakane et al. (US 5,499,863,
issued Mar. 19, 1996). (Final Act. 2-4.)
2
Appeal 2016-005265
Application 13/289,660
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue2:
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Fredrick
and either Cape or Nakane teaches or suggests the limitations of the claims.
(App. Br. 6—10.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2-4) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (Ans. 2—6). We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in
Frederick of an automotive seat frame including transversely extending sheet
metal cross-members secured to a pair of vertically extending members to
form a U-shape, in which the transverse members include flanges bonded to
the upright members. (Final Act. 2; Ans. 2—3; Frederick Figs. 2, 6, col. 3,11.
30-44, col. 6,11. 12—22.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosures of
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 16, 2014); the Reply Brief
(filed Apr. 19, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed Feb. 26, 2014); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Feb. 19, 2016) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-005265
Application 13/289,660
Nakane and Cape of forming hollow structural members from a rolled blank,
wherein the edges are welded together. (Final Act. 2; Nakane Figs. 6, 13,
18; Cape Figs. 7—11.)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because the modification of
Frederick required by the cited combination would “undercut and render
unsatisfactory the intended purpose of Fredrick of providing open vertical
members for the receipt of various structures including but not limited to the
reinforcing members.” (App. Br. 7.) Appellants also argue there would be
no reasonable expectation of success that the modification required by the
cited combination could be made. (App. Br. 8—9.)
These arguments are unpersuasive because they rely on the particular
assembly instructions of the embodiments disclosed in Frederick involving
components that are not relied on by the Examiner as part of the
combination rendering the subject matter of the claims obvious. The artisan
is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference
over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. “A
determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The relevant issue is “what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA
1973). See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
4
Appeal 2016-005265
Application 13/289,660
Appellants further argue the claimed invention presents a “reduction
of parts” compared to the prior art, and that in contrast the Examiner’s
combination requires additional parts. (App. Br. 10.) As discussed above,
however, the Examiner’s combination does not rely on the complete parts
assembly of the Frederick embodiment, but rather relies on the pertinent
aspects of the combination of Frederik and Nakane or Cape.
In addition, Appellants argue the transverse members of Frederick on
which the Examiner relies fail to satisfy the claim requirement, “the deep-
drawn sheet-metal part having flanges for connecting on the first and second
profiles.” (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 10—11.) As the Examiner points out,
however, Frederick discloses:
In cross section, lumbar support cross member 24 is generally.
"L" shaped, thereby providing a pair of perpendicular mounting
surfaces 24a and 24b. Cross member 24 is fixedly secured to
side supports 20 and 22, for example, by welding or bolting.
(Ans. 2—3; Frederick col. 4,11. 27—31.) We are not persuaded the Examiner
errs in relying on this disclosure of Frederick as teaching or suggesting the
claim limitation at issue.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 5 over Fredrick and either Cape or Nakane. We also
sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 6—8 over Fredrick and either
Cape or Nakane, which rejections are not argued separately with
particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5—8.
5
Appeal 2016-005265
Application 13/289,660
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). See C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6