Ex Parte Parker et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201713868741 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 22706-00116/R- 12-135-US 7562 EXAMINER MORROW, JASON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3612 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/868,741 04/23/2013 99412 7590 11/01/2017 Dingman IP Law, PC/Bose Corporation 114 Turnpike Road , Suite 108 Wes thorough, MA 01581 Robert Preston Parker 11/01/2017 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 BOSE CORPORATION Appeal 2016-0079261’2 Application 13/868,741 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10 and 20-43. Claims 11—19 and 1 Robert Preston Parker, Lawrence D. Knox, Travis Lee Hein, Steven N. Brown, and Brian A. Selden are named as inventors. According to the Appellant, Bose Corp. is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of Apr. 23, 2013, and has no parent applications. Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amendments to the U.S. Code (§§ 102, 103) are applicable. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2159.02: “AIA 35 U.S.C. [§§] 102 and 103 took effect on March 16,2013. AIA 35 U.S.C.[§§] 102 and 103 apply to any patent application that contains or contained at any time a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16, 2013.” Appeal 2016-007926 Application 13/868,741 44-48 have been withdrawn from consideration. See Final Act. 1; App. Br. 2.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s Invention The invention concerns seat systems and methods for controlling motion of a seat, the seat system including a seat, an intermediate support structure and actuator that cause the seat to move relative to the vehicle, sensors which can each measure an aspect of motion, and a processor. The processor receives input from the sensors and utilizes the input to determine a desired movement of the seat relative to the vehicle. The combined motion of the seat relative to the vehicle and the vehicle relative to earth results in motion of a person about a virtual pivot point located substantially along a reference vertical centerline. The reference vertical centerline passes through the body of a person sitting in the seat when both the seat and the vehicle are in a nominal, level horizontal orientation. Spec. 1, 3—10, Abstract. Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A seat system for a vehicle, comprising: a seat including a seat bottom on which a person can sit, wherein a first imaginary reference vertical centerline passes 3 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed Apr. 23, 2013, Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Dec. 7, 2015, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Aug. 13, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 15, 2016, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed Apr. 27, 2015. 2 Appeal 2016-007926 Application 13/868,741 through a body of a person who is sitting in the seat when both the seat and the vehicle are in a nominal, level horizontal orientation; an intermediate support structure is secured to the seat and the vehicle which allows the seat to move relative to the vehicle; a first actuator that can interact with the seat to cause the seat to move relative to the vehicle; one or more sensors which can each measure an aspect of motion; and a processor that can (i) receive input from each of the one or more sensors, and (ii) utilize the input to determine a desired movement of the seat relative to the vehicle such that a combined motion of the seat relative to the vehicle and the vehicle relative to earth results in motion of the person about a virtual pivot point located substantially along the reference vertical centerline. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—4, 8—10, 21—23, 25, 26, 28—30, 32—36, 38, 39, and 41—43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torres (US 6,068,280, issued May 30, 2000). 2. The Examiner rejects claims 5—7 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Torres. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 20, 24, 27, 31, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Torres and Tzipman (US 2013/0131923 Al, published May 23, 2013 (filed Jan. 16, 2013)). ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, Appellant’s contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows: Did the Examiner err in finding that Torres discloses 3 Appeal 2016-007926 Application 13/868,741 a processor that can (i) receive input from each of the one or more sensors, and (ii) utilize the input to determine a desired movement of the seat relative to the vehicle such that a combined motion of the seat relative to the vehicle and the vehicle relative to earth results in motion of the person about a virtual pivot point located substantially along the reference vertical centerline (claim 1, App. Br. 12) within the meaning of Appellant’s claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 25, 33, and 43? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as anticipated by Torres. See Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 3^4. Appellant contends Torres does not teach the disputed features of claim 1. See App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 2—\. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner does specifically identity the relevant disclosure of Torres, and that Torres does not describe utilizing sensor inputs “to determine a desired movement of the seat relative to the vehicle such that a combined motion of the seat relative to the vehicle and the vehicle relative to earth results in motion of the verson about a virtual pivot point located substantially along the reference vertical centerline App. Br 5; see App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 2—\. In particular, Appellant contends, the claim recites a “virtual pivot point” about which a seat occupant “pivots” or rotates and the occupant does not simply remain in a vertical position, but instead rotates “beyond a vertical position’’ (App. Br. 6). See id. 5—7; Reply Br. 2-4. The Examiner finds Torres describes positioning a seat in a position other than horizontal (placing an occupant in a non-vertical position) — “Torres allows []that the seat may be positioned other than horizontally (necessarily resulting in the person rotating beyond a vertical position) such that the person would rotate around a ‘virtual pivot 4 Appeal 2016-007926 Application 13/868,741 point’” (Ans. 4) and, therefore, “the seat is capable of performing according to the claimed function and . . . anticipates the claim limitation” (id.). See Ans. 3^4 (citing Torres col. 5,1. 65—col. 6,1. 9). We agree with Appellant that Torres fails to describe the disputed determination of a desired movement (see Spec. ]Hf 28—30, 47; Appellant’s Figs. IB and 8, element 33) in that Torres does not describe a pivot point along a vertical reference and does not describe positioning a seat such that an occupant pivots about such a point. At best, Torres describes positioning a seat in a non-horizontal position. See Torres col. 5,1. 66-col. 6,1. 9. Although Torres generally describes positioning an occupant in a non vertical position, which could result in the occupant pivoting about a virtual pivot point on a vertical reference line, Torres does not explicitly describe such seat motion, nor is such seat motion inherently required. The Examiner does not provide a clear explanation or mapping of the disputed claim features to the disclosures of Torres and fails to sufficiently show that Torres discloses the disputed determination of a desired seat movement and resultant motion of a seat occupant (person). Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that Torres discloses the disputed limitation of Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 25 and 33 include limitations of commensurate scope. Independent claim 43 describes determining seat rotation greater than vehicle rotation, but the determination is essentially the same as that in claim 1. Dependent claims 2—4, 8—10, 21—23, 26, 28—30, 32, 34—36, 38, 39, 41, and 42 depend on claims 1, 25, and 33, respectively. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1^1, 8-10, 21-23, 25, 26, 28-30, 32-36, 38, 39, and 41^13. 5 Appeal 2016-007926 Application 13/868,741 With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 5—7, 20, 24, 27, 31, 37, and 40, the Examiner did not present findings that the additional reference, Tzipman, cures the deficiencies of Torres, nor did the Examiner present findings that Torres would have suggested the disputed determination of a desired seat movement (discussed with respect to claim 1, supra). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 5—7, 20, 24, 27, 31, 37, and 40. CONCLUSIONS Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—4, 8— 10, 21-23, 25, 26, 28-30, 32-36, 38, 39, and 41^13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5—7, 20, 24, 27, 31,37, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—10 and 20-43. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation