Tomoki Nii et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

14227288 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2019)

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.
14/227,288 03/27/2014 Tomoki NII P45570 6625
7055 7590 09/30/2019
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
TSUI, YUNG-SHENG M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TOMOKI NII and YOSHIYUKI MURATA
____________

Appeal 2018-001320
Application 14/227,288
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 over Kono2 in
view of Suzuki3 and of claims 2 and 3 over Kono in view of Suzuki and
Kobayashi.4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.

1 Appellant is Applicant, Toyota Boshoku Kabushiki Kaisha, who is also
identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Kono et al., US 2013/0127225 A1, published May 23, 2013.
3 Suzuki et al., JP 06206229, published July 26, 1994. The Examiner relies
on an abstract provided by Applicant. Final Act. 2.
4 Kobayashi, US 4,699,427, issued October 13, 1987.
Appeal 2018-001320
Application 14/227,288

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to a method of
manufacturing a conveyance seat that includes integrally molding a seat pad.
Specification filed March 27, 2014 (“Spec.”), Abstract.
Claim 1—the sole independent claim—is representative.
1. A manufacturing method for a conveyance seat having a
pad structure including a seat pad and a back face member, the
manufacturing method comprising:
integrally molding the seat pad with the back face
member in a state where the back face member is arranged so as
to cross over a parting line that is formed by laying a first sub
element and a second sub element of a molding die on top of
each other, the back face member crossing over the parting line
from the first sub element to the second sub element, the
molding die being formed of at least the first sub element and
the second sub element.
Appeal Brief filed April 28, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”), 14.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the maintained grounds of rejection set forth by the
Examiner, Appellant’s arguments, and the Examiner’s response.5 On this
record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has failed to establish the
unpatentability of the claims. For any ground of rejection, “the Examiner
bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We
add the following.

5 We refer to the Specification, the Final Office Action dated November 30,
2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Answer dated
September 22, 2017 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed November 17, 2017
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-001320
Application 14/227,288

3
Kono relates to a method of manufacturing a vehicle seat with an
elastic fiber body 10 using a forming apparatus 30 that includes a first
mold 31 and a second mold 32 to form a cavity 34 when, which is filled with
a foaming material FM. Spec. ¶¶ 68, 72, Figs. 7A–C. Kono further
discloses that second mold 32 can be divided into a side mold 32L and a
center mold 32C. Id. ¶ 69. As disclosed in Kono, elastic fiber body 10 is
disposed on a rear surface of the pad member 6P formed. Id. ¶ 2. The
Examiner relies on Kono as disclosing a method of making a vehicle seat by
molding a seat pad with a back face member (elastic fiber body 10) where
the molding die is composed of first and second sub elements (32L and 32C)
in Figure 8B. Final Act. 2.
In addressing Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner states that “there
is no language in claim 1 that requires the back face member to extend
beyond the sub element,” that the “parting line from the first sub element to
the second sub element” in claim 1 is arbitrary, and the “Specification fails
to clearly define where such a ‘parting line’ is located or how the ‘parting
line’ is configured.” Ans. 4. The Examiner then relies on Kono’s Figure 8B
again as depicting the back face member 10 as crossing over the “line” that,
in effect, extends from the interface between element 32C and element 32L.
Id. at 4–5. The Examiner further sets forth that assuming claim 1 includes a
“limitation for ‘overlapping back face members,’ one of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized that overlapping the back face members would
prevent the injected foam from leaking out the sides before it solidifies” and
equates this to common everyday actions “performed to prevent something
from falling out of its container.” Id. at 5–6.
Appeal 2018-001320
Application 14/227,288

4
Suzuki relates to a method of making a foamed molded product with a
foam layer 14 formed between a core material 12 and a skin 13 where the
peripheral edge parts of the core material 12 and the skin 13 overlap in
contact and prevent exposure of the formed foam layer 14 to the outside.
Suzuki, Abstract. As depicted in Suzuki Figures 4 and 5, a mold part 18,
upon which a core material 12 is positioned, and mold parts 17 and 19, upon
which a skin 13 is positioned, are brought together, whereby the overlapping
portions of the core material 12 and the skin 13 are brought into contact, and
a foam layer 14 is formed within the cavity defined by mold parts 17–19,
with the foam part 14 bounded by core material 12 and skin 13. Id.
Abstract, Figs. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Suzuki disclosing a method of
making a foamed molded article, but mis-cites elements 18 and 19 as back
face members and elements 12 and 13 as sub elements (of the mold). Final
Act. 2; see also Ans. 6–7.
The Examiner determines that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art, at the time of invention by applicants, to have modified the
method of Kono by overlapping back face members (crossing the parting
line of sub elements) as taught by Suzuki” because doing so was “a known
method for producing a foamed article” and the “overlap would serve to
prevent any leaking of the foamed material outside of the back face
members and keep the foam from seeping into the gaps between the sub
elements.” Final Act. 3.
Contrary to the Examiner’s position, we determine that claim 1 does
require that “the back face member is arranged so as to cross over a parting
line . . . formed by layering a first sub element and a second sub element of a
molding die on top of each other,” as it is manifest from the Specification
Appeal 2018-001320
Application 14/227,288

5
that the “parting line” is the point at which sub elements of a molding die are
mated, that is, the gap between the mold die parts that together form the
mold cavity. See Spec. ¶¶ 3, 6, 7, 16, and 19. We give terms the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Suitco Surface,
Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also In re Smith Int’l,
Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the “broadest reasonable
interpretation . . . [is] an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the
specification’”) (citation omitted). Here, we determine that the proper
meaning of “parting line” is the gap or interface between sub elements of a
molding die such that a back face member must lie over the gap or interface
in order to “cross over a parting line.”
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in failing to properly
construe claim 1, and then in failing to establish a basis for the back face
member being arranged to cross over the parting line. Appeal Br. 6–7;
Reply Br. 7–8. As explained above, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner erred in this respect.
Appellant also contends that it would not have been obvious to
modify the back face member 10 of Kono to extend over the parting line.
Appeal Br. 7–8. In particular, Appellant contends that Kono teaches away
from such a modification and that it would not operate properly if so
modified. Id. Appellant further contends that the Examiner relies on
impermissible hindsight in the combination. Id. at 8.
On this record, we agree that there is an insufficient basis set forth by
the Examiner for modifying Kono as would be required to arrive at the
subject matter of claim 1. While the Examiner contends that there is a basis
Appeal 2018-001320
Application 14/227,288

6
for modifying Kono if the claim requires the back face member to extend
over the parting line, namely, to “prevent the injected foam from leaking out
the sides before it solidifies” (Ans. 5), there is no explanation how injected
foam would be expected to leak out of the sides before it solidifies in
unmodified Kono, or how it would be a benefit to keep foam from seeping
into the gaps between its sub elements (see generally Final Act.; Ans). In
light of these deficiencies, Suzuki disclosing “a known method for
producing a foamed article” is not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis for
modifying the particular article of Kono, or its method of manufacture.
Final Act. 3. “[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only
could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations
or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc.
v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). On this record,
accordingly, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning falls short of that
necessary for a prima facie case. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445.
The Examiner’s further reliance on Kobayashi in the rejection of
claims 2 and 3 does not remedy the deficiency discussed above.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claim 1 over Kono in view of Suzuki or of claims 2 and 3 over Kono in view
of Suzuki and Kobayashi.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
REVERSED.
REVERSED