COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
Obviousness: Secretarial Chair
The applicant uses the inner sleeve member of the rubber torsion mounting of a
chair to support the chair back. The prior art arrangement uses the outer sleeve
the rubber torsion member of this support. This permits recessing the working part
within the seat, but that is a matter of design rather than invention.
Final Action: Affirmed ****************
This decision deals with 2 request for review by the Commissioner of
Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated November 21. 1975, on appli-
cation 140,872 (Class 155-48). The application was filed on April 28,
1972, in the name of Bernard J. Fries, and is entitled "Chair."
The Patent Appeal Board conducted a Hearing on September 9, 1977, at
which Mr. A. Graham, and also Mr. J. Mitchell (the applicant's American
agent) represented the applicant.
In this application the applicant is seeking a patent for a tiltable office
chair. In particular he claims a secretarial chair provided with an adjust-
able back which tilts away from the seat. The adjustment means for controll-
ing and limiting the degree of tilt is concealed under the seat within a
recess, and is fitted with a molded plastic cover which hides the working
mechanism from the observer when the chair is viewed in profile. It is,
consequently much more attractive than a chair where all the working parts
are exposed. Figures 1 and 8 illustrate the application.
<IMG>
In his Final Action the examiner refused the applications for failing to
define patentable subject matter over the following patents:
United States
3,111,343 Nov. 19, 1963 Pearson
Canadian
669,631 Sept. 3, 1963 Lie
71,339 May 14, 1901 Frazer
The Pearson patent is also for a secretarial chair. The adjustment means
for this chair is concealed in the seat-supporting shell which is anchored
to the spindle base by a hub arrangement. Figures 1 and 3 of Pearson are
shown below.
<IMG>
Lie describes a secretarial chair in which a torsion bar-pivot assembly
is used to control the tilt of the back portion. Figures 3 and 6 of Lie
illustrate his invention.
<IMG>
The Frazer patent is for a chair in which the pivoted tiltable back portion
is restrained by a compressed coil spring mounted under the seat.
In the Final Action the examiner stated (in part):
The patent to Fraser ........ " shows a relatively flat mechanism
for pretensioning the pivotal movement of the backrest of a
chair. Fore and aft movement of the backrest is also taught
therein.
It is held as entirely obvious to cover up an unsightly pivot
member with a plastic shell which is merely added on and, in
the words of applicant's December 3, 1973 reply:
"The cover has nothing to do with the chair control
itself, other than to conceal it ... has absolutely
nothing to do with the operability of the chair
control".
Applicant argues that this concept is in no way disclosed or
suggested by the prior art.
In reply to this, cloth, vinyl, molded plastic and sheet metal
parts are commonly used to conceal unsightly parts and their use
does not amount to invention.
To cover up the pivot member of the patent to Fraser would merely
produce the obvious result of enhancing the appearance in profile,
as applicant states, it goes not make the chair operate better or
even differently as a chair. Furthermore the patent to Lie shows in
figure. 6 a profile of a chair wherein the control means of figure 3
is concealed by frame 12.
Further details in the claims of the pivoted torsion member are
obvious in view of the patent to Pearson which shows a rubber in
torsion member having inner and outer members, the backrest being
connected to the outer member. The use of an ear extending from
the backrest mounting bracket is obvious in view of the abutments
of the patent to Lie. The use of abutments for stops is well known.
All claims are therefore rejected as directed to unpatentable
material in view of the applied references. It cannot be said to
be inventive to cover up unsightly parts with that which merely
performs as a cover. The advantages of a cover are well discussed
in the patent to Pearson. Applicant states that the cover is shaped
in accordance with the seat shell. However, this is considered to
be a matter of appearance only, and design for appearance is not
patentable per se.
In his responses to the Final Action the applicant stated (inter alia):
Because the cover which is called for in broad claim 1 deviates
from the configuration of the hidden interior shell member, the
cover defines the shape of the chair seat. Rather than being
conformed to the shape of a chair control, thereby constituting
simply a cover for the chair control, the outer cover member
employed in the present invention actually defines a hidden
recess into which the chair control member can be secreted. An open-
ing in the cover member, spaced from the shell, allows one to insert
the control into the hidden recess and allows access to the control
if necessary.
This concept is not in any way suggested by the prior art. The
Examiner says that the advantages of a cover are well discussed in
Pearson. However, Pearson does not employ any cover member. Pear-
son simply employs a conventional torsion member in which the housing
3 has a forwardly sloping portion. The housing 3 itself is necessary
to support the control member. Pearson's support housing 3 is
necessary to the operation of the control. The control is not in-
dependent of the support housing 3 and in fact the two are integral
parts of the control. Housing 3 very clearly looks like and is a
support housing for the control arid is always clearly visible in
the Pearson chair.
The same is true in Lie. The perimeter frame 12 on the Lie chair
which the Examiner mentions on passing certainly does not suggest
a cover member which deviates downwardly in contour below an inter-
ior shell member to define a hidden recess between the cover and the
shell. There is no such hidden recess in Lie and in fact, the chair
control member of Lie is largely visible when the chair is viewed in
profile (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 6).
In Fraser, the chair control mechanism is also clearly visible. There
is nothing comparable in Fraser to a shell which appears to be the
support for the seat, but which actually deviates in contour from
the real supporting shell to create a secret, hidden recess there-
between into which the chair control is secreted.
...
The concept of fixing the inner member to the support housing, allow-
ing the outer member to rotate when the tiltable mounting means is
tilted, and mounting the tiltable member mounting bracket on the
ends of the inner member between the ends of the outer member and
the housing rather than over the outer member, is not in any way
suggested by Pearson. Nor are the ear stops extending from the
tiltable mounting bracket to engage the top and bottom plates of
a spindle holder in any way remotely suggested by Pearson.
Further, such arrangement is not suggested by Lie. Lie relates
to an entirely different type of torsion control in which a torsion
bar is employed rather than inner and outer members with a rubber
pack therebetween. Further, the stop member employed by Lie does
not constitute ears projecting from the mounting bracket, but
rather constitutes a separate bracket secured to the tiltable
mounting bracket which has a flange extending between the top
and bottom members of the spindle holder.
Nor is Fraser any more pertinent relative to the claimed de-
tails of the unique low profile control means of the present
invention. Fraser simply discloses an archaic coil spring
mechanism.
We have considered the prosecution of this application and the arguments
made at the Hearing. The issue which the Board must determine is whether
the application is directed to a patentable advance in the art, or conversely,
if it is obvious. Claim 1 of the application reads as follows:
In an improved chair having a base, a seat member, and a control
means for controlling the tilt of at least a portion of said
chair, the improvement comprising: said seat member including
an internal shell and a molded plastic cover member for enclosing
at least the bottom portion of said shell; said control means being
secured to said shell and being operable independently of said
cover when mounted on said shell; said cover deviating downwardly
in contour below said shell defining a hidden recess between said
cover and said shell and enclosing said control means within
said hidden recess so that it is recessed within the underside
of said seat member to preclude its visual appearance when said
chair is viewed in profile; said downwardly deviating portions of
said cover defining an opening spaced from said shell through
which chair support means can pass; chair support means passing
through said opening and being operably connected to said shell.
The applicant contends that his chair is made attractive by the moulded
plastic cover which projects downwardly below the internal seat shell. He
states that the "employment of a cover member which actually deviates from
the contour of a hidden inner shell member to give the appearance that it
is the bottom of the chair, and which has nothing to do with the operation of
the chair control," is not suggested by the prior art.
Considering the Pearson patent, we find in column 1, line 45 ff., that "It is
a further object of the present invention to provide a chair of the type
described in which all the adjustments are made by mechanisms which are for
the most part concealed." Pearson's cover shell is of sufficient strength
to act as the seat support housing for the torsion anchoring member and the
chair spindle, whereas the applicant's cover shell is primarily for conceal-
ment and asthetic purposes. A contour view of Pearson (Fig. 1) reveals a
chair with a "soft appearance" similar to that contemplated by the applicant.
At the Hearing the applicant argued that he has a new concept in seat con-
struction. This concept involves a back support torsion control means
wherein the inner torsion member extends beyond the outer member. The
inner member is anchored to the support housing. According to the applic-
ant this arrangement produces a "low profile appearance", when used with
the cover member.
If we analyse the arrangement of the torsion control we find the following
components:
1) an inner tubular member (or inner sleeve),
2) an outer tubular member (or outer sleeve), and
3) a cylindrical rubber body positioned coaxially between (1) and (2).
The rubber body is in effect bonded to the surfaces so that relative rotat-
ional movement between 1 and 2 places it under torsional strain.
Figure 14 of Pearson is shown here to illustrate the torsion arrangement he
employs.
<IMG>
The inner sleeve 20 is anchored to the chair by plates 17. A cylindrical
rubber torsion member is bonded to the inner sleeve 20 and outer sleeve 21.
Lever Arm 24 which carries the seat back is pivoted about the outer sleeve
on hubs 29. A torque arm 23 is fixed to sleeve 21 by a suitable bonding agent,
and a set screw through aperture 23(2) serves as the chair back tension
control.
It is the applicant's opinion that by mounting the back bracket member on
the extended ends of the inner tube he is able to keep these in the same
plane and obtain a lower profile. This would be true if there was no torque
arm required. However, applicant's use of a torque arm sleeve around the
outer torque sleeve is similar to that shown in Pearson (23 in Figure 14).
Consequently since this torque arm sleeve is in a plane which surrounds
the outer torque sleeve, the profile contour will be governed by the size
of the torque arm sleeve. We can see no difference in the applicant's
arrangement and Pearson's in this respect.
Another feature which the applicant stresses as important to attain his
low profile is his use of a spindle holder that is in the same plane but
displaced horizontally from the torsion member. Lie's arrangement also
has the spindle holder spaced horizontally from his torsion unit. Similarly,
Pearson's spindle holder is horizontally adjacent to the torsion member and
provides the same desired effect as obtained by the applicant.
The applicant emphasized that his back mounting bracket has an ear which
projects past the torsion member and fits unto the slot of the spindle
holder to act as a stop. Pearson's back mounting bracket has two end pro-
jections similar to the applicant's ears which also serve to limit the
rotation of the member. Lie's chair uses a flanged bracket which engages
a plate to act as a limit stop. We find no novelty in applicant's stop
arrangement.
Claim 1, the only independent claim in the application, specifies that
the control means is secured to the seat shell, and is concealed by a cover
over the seat shell. Securing of the control means to the seat (as done by
the applicant) or to the cover (as done by Pearson) is not a result which
can be considered inventive. Any individual viewing the applicant's chair
in profile would be unaware of the the location of the chair control anchor-
age, just as he would if he viewed Pearson's chair.
All the remaining claims, which depend on claim 1, do not add any new or
patentable feature to claim 1.
In our view the structural variations in the claims are of the type re-
ferred to by Mr. Justice Maclean, in Niagara Wire Weaving v.Johnson Wire
Works Ltd. (1930 Ex. C.R, at 273:
Small variations from, or slight modifications of, the
current standards of construction, in an old art, rarely
are indicative of invention; they are usually obvious im-
provements resulting from experience and them changing re-
quirements of users.
and at page 276:
No step is disclosed there which could be described as in-
vention. There is not, in my opinion, that distinction between
what was known before, and that disclosed ... that called for
that degree of ingenuity requisite to support a patent. If
those patents could be supported it would seriously impede
all improvements in the practical application of common knowledge.
In summary we are satisfied that the claims and the application as a whole
fail to disclose a patentable advance in the art. Any differences between
the alleged invention and the prior art are minimal. We recommend that
the decision in the Final Action be affirmed.
G.A. Asher
Chairman
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
Having considered the arguments of the applicant and the findings of the
Patent Appeal Board, I now reject the application. If any appeal under Sec-
tion 44 of the Patent Act is contemplated, it must be taken within six months
of the date of this decision.
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 13th. day of October, 1977
Agent for Applicant
Scott & Aylen
77 Metcalfe St.
Ottawa, Ont.