COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS (and indefiniteness) - Reclining Chair
This application relates to a reclining chair which can be positioned
in close proximity to a wall. An amendment submitted to the Board
was accepted as overcoming the objections in the Final Action.
Final Action: Affirmed
*************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner of
Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated May 10, 1976, on applica-
tion 155,013 (Class 155-41.2). The application was filed on October 27,
1972, and is entitled "Reclining Chair." An amendment to this application,
dated June 10, 1977, was presented to the Patent Appeal Board just prior
to the Board's consideration of this case. The examiner is of the
opinion that this amendment overcomes the objections made in the Final
Action. This amendment will now be considered by the Board.
The application relates to a reclining chair which can be positioned in
close proximity to such things as a wall or other articles ef furniture.
Figure 9, shown below, depicts that arrangement.
<IMG>
In refusing claims in the Final Action the examiner had this to say
(in part) as follows:
...
References Applied:
United States Patents
2,815,794 Dec. 10, 1957 Henrickson et al
2,789,291 Apr. 23, 1957 Nock
2,270,172 Jan. 13, 1942 Ruegger
2,966,939 Jan. 3, 1961 Fletcher
3,433,527 Mar. 18, 1969 R‚
The patent to Henrickson et al shows a reclining chair mounted
on a chassis wherein the chassis and the body-supporting unit
move forwardly on reclining. Applicant argues stability and
center of gravity but this is not clear from claim 1. Applicant
states that Hendrickson does not show a situation where the body-
supporting unit goes in one direction relative to a chassis and
the chassis goes in an opposite direction relative to the base.
While it is agreed that Hendrickson et al does not show this;
this is not stated in claim 1; applicant appears to have
missed the meaning of his words in claim 1. The mere substitution
of a chassis for the linkages of Nock or Ruegger does not amount
to invention.
The legrest is merely "added on" in view of common knowledge
as shown by the patents to ~~ and ~letcher. Applicant argues
the fastening to the floor of the patent to Hendrickson et al
however, no such fastening is required in the patent to Nuck.
Applicant argues in his October 14, 1975 reply that claim 1
dues not read on the prior art. While this is agreed, more
than this is required for patentability. The claim must be
directed to subject matter that is inventive in view of the
prior art. Such is not the case.
Claim 1 is therefore rejected as directed to unpatentable
material in view of the cited references. Comments with
respect to the prior art are limited to claims 1 and 5 for
reasons outlined hereinafter.
Discussion with respect to the prior art and with respect to
unity of subject matter with respect to the claims is difficult
because of the vagueness of the claims. Claims 2 to 4 and 6
are avoidably obscure, the description of the interconnections
and movements of the various parts is given in different terms
throughout the claims. As far as can be understood, these
descriptions are contradictory and inconsistent with the disclosure
as presented hereinafter.
In claims 1 and 2 the body-supporting unit is stated to move
relative to the wall. In claim 5 this is left out and the body-
supporting unit moves rearwardly relative to the chassis. In
claim 6 the seat and back are operatively interconnected and the
seat moves rearwardly relative to the chassis. In claim 4 both
the body-supporting unit and the chassis move relative to the
base. In claims 2 and 3 the movement of the body-supporting
unit relative to the base is stated to be in substantially inverse
ratio to any movement of the chassis relative to the base. The
ordinary meaning of these words in claims 2 and 3 is that if the
chassis moves one foot forward relative to the base, the body-
supporting unit moves one foot rearward relative to the base
which is inconsistent with claims 4 and 5. The disclosure
states, on page 1 that the body-supporting unit moves forwardly
relative to the platform. Claim 2 is therefore also inconsistent
with the disclosure.
The applicant submitted an amendment, dated August 9, 1976, to the
Final Action. The examiner did not accept that amendment as overcoming
the objection in the Final Action. A number of other amendments were sub-
sequently submitted and on June 10, 1977, an amendment was made and the
applicant stated his position (in part) as follows:
Following our most recent discussion, I now enclose the amended
claim 1, which includes the agreed suggestion to add the words
"a generally" in the last line to read -- a generally rearward
movement relative to the chassis--; and to make the claim more
definite and operable the words "relative to the base as" are
included after "chassis" to read --of the chassis relative to
the base as indicated--. (Fourth last line)
The above amendment is in addition to other amendments which have been
entered in this application. Amended claim 1 now reads:
A reclining chair movable between upright-sitting and inter-
mediate-television and fully-reclined positions and
positionable anywhere on a floor of a room and in close adjacency
and forwardly of a wall when in the upright-sitting position
while allowing ready assumption of intermediate television and
fully-reclined positions free of wall contact comprising:
a base supportable on a floor without connection thereto,
a chassis including interconnected armrests carried on the base,
means mounting the chassis on the base for linear movement
relative to the base, a body-supporting unit including a seat
and back, a leg-supporting unit mounted from the body-supporting
unit, a linkage mechanism operatively interconnecting the body-supporting
and leg-supporting units and the chassis and base whereby the
body-suppoxting and leg-supporting units move forwardly
relative to the base and effecting movement of the body-supporting
unit between upright-sitting and intermediate-television and
fully-reclined positions and concomitant and simultaneous movement
of the leg-supporting unit between retracted and extended positions
respectively, said linkage mechanism being actuated by the forward
linear movement of the chassis relative to the base as initiated
by the occupant applying a force to the armrests which imparts to
the body-supporting and leg-supporting units a generally rearward
movement relative to the chassis.
In the Final Action some claims were refused as being too broad in scope
and failing to satisfy Section 36 of the Patent Act.
The examiner stated that he was prepared to accept the amendments mentioned
above as overcoming the objection of the Final Action. We have studied
these amendments and we are also satisfied that these amendments overcome the
rejections in the Final Action. The claim, in our view, is now in
condition for allowance.
In summary, we are satisfied that the amendments overcome the rejections of
the Final Action. We recommend that these amendments be accepted.
J.F. Hughes
Acting Chairman
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
Having studied the prosecution of this application and reviewed the recommend-
ation of the Patent Appeal Board, I have decided to accept the amendments.
The application is returned to the examiner for resumption of prosecution.
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 28th. day of June, 1977
Agent for Applicant
Jean T. Richard, M.P.
48 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5A8