Ex Parte Parker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13868741 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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.
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44-48 have been withdrawn from consideration.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