Alain Domingo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

2018006688 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2020)

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.
14/351,820 04/14/2014 Alain Domingo 338180-01067 7375
35161 7590 06/30/2020
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1825 EYE ST., NW
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
FISCHER, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 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):
dwpatents@dickinsonwright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAIN DOMINGO, JACQUES BESSON, FRANCOIS
BARBARIN, GILLES SALLAZ, and ROBERT CIPRIAN RADULESCU
Appeal 2018-006688
Application 14/351,820
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as COMPAGNIE
GENERALE DES ESTABLISSEMENTS MICHELIN and MICHELIN
RECHERCHE ET TECHNIQUE S.A. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006688
Application 14/351,820

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a tire that includes at least one layer of
circumferential reinforcing elements. Spec. ¶ 24. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A tire comprising:
a radial carcass reinforcement comprising a crown
reinforcement comprising:
at least two working crown layers each formed of
reinforcing elements, the reinforcing elements being metallic,
inserted between two calendering layers of rubber mixture,
crossed from one layer to the other while forming, with a
circumferential direction, angles of between 10° and 45°,
at least one layer of circumferential reinforcing
elements, wherein the tensile modulus of elasticity at 10%,
elongation of at least one calendering layer of at least one
working crown layer is less than 8.5 MPa and wherein,
the maximum tan(δ) value, denoted
tan(δ)max, of the at least one calendering layer of at least
one working crown layer is less than 0.100 and wherein,
the at least one calendering layer of at least
one working crown layer is an elastomeric mixture based
on natural rubber or on synthetic polyisoprene
predominantly comprising cis-1,4 enchainments and
optionally on at least one other diene elastomer, the
natural rubber or the synthetic polyisoprene, in the case
of a blend, being present at a predominant content with
respect to the content of the other diene elastomer(s)
used, and on a reinforcing filler consisting:
a) either of carbon black with a BET specific
surface of greater than 60 m2/g,
i. employed at a content of between 20
and 40 phr when the structural index of the carbon
Appeal 2018-006688
Application 14/351,820

3
black using Compressed Oil Absorption Number
(COAN) is greater than 85,
ii. employed at a content of between 20
and 50 phr when the structural index of the carbon
black (COAN) is less than 85,
b) or of carbon black with a BET specific
surface of less than 60 m2/g, whatever its structural
index, employed at a content of between 20 and 80 phr,
c) or of a white filler of silica and/or alumina
type comprising SiOH and/or AlOH surface functional
groups, selected from the group consisting of precipitated
or fumed silicas, aluminas and aluminosilicates, or
alternatively carbon blacks modified during or after the
synthesis having a BET specific surface of between 130
and 260 m2/g, employed at a content of between 20 and
80 phr,
d) or of a blend of carbon black described in
(a) and/or of carbon black described in (b) and/or a white
filler described in (c), in which the overall content of
filler is between 20 and 80 phr;
a tread joined to two beads via two sidewalls, radially
topping the crown reinforcement.
Appeal Br. 19–20 (Appendix A).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Radulescu US 2006/0169383 A1 August 3, 2006
Mangeret US 7,241,824 B2 July 10, 2007
Imamiya US 2002/0160213 A1 October 31, 2002
Wilkins US 2,643,273 June 23, 1953

Appeal 2018-006688
Application 14/351,820

4
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 3–12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Radulescu and Mangeret.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Radulescu, Mangeret, and Imamiya.
3. Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Radulescu, Mangeret, and Wilkins.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by the Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering
each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant
identifies reversible error. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the
reasons expressed in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
Claims 1 and 3–12
The Examiner finds that Radulescu discloses claim 1’s layered tire
structure but is silent as to the topping or coating composition in the
circumferential belt layer and the working crown layers. Final Act. 2 (citing
Radulescu ¶ 109, Fig. 3). The Examiner finds, however, that Mangeret
discloses a silica-reinforced rubber composition designed for the
manufacture of semi-finished tire products, such as crown plies. Id. (citing
Mangeret 3:19–44). Mangeret teaches that these rubber compositions
provide good mechanical properties and low hysteresis. Mangeret 1:17–25.
Appeal 2018-006688
Application 14/351,820

5
Because Radulescu is silent with respect to the rubber compositions used in
its circumferential belt layer and working crown layers, and because
Mangeret teaches rubber compositions used for manufacturing tires, such as,
for example crown plies, the Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use Mangeret’s rubber
composition in Radulescu’s crown plies to obtain a tire with good
mechanical properties, low hysteresis, and good processability. Final Act. 2–
3; Ans. 7.
Appellant argues that the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132
executed by Nathalie Salgues on March 20, 2017 (“Salgues Declaration”)
provides evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used
Mangeret’s rubber composition in Radulescu’s crown plies because the
properties inherent to Mangeret’s rubber composition make it “not ideal” for
use in crown plies reinforced with metallic cords, as taught by Radulescu.
Appeal Br. 11–13; Salgues Decl. 3–4. Appellant contends that the Examiner
reversibly erred by failing to demonstrate that the evidence presented in the
Salgues Declaration is insufficient to overcome the rejection. Id. at 10.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Salgues Declaration includes general opinion statements that steel cord
components “typically” are formed with components and loadings different
from those detailed by Mangeret. Ans. 5; Salgues Decl. 4 (discussing that
Mangeret’s sulphur rate is too low and its stearic acid rate is too high “for
usage in applications similar to the claimed tire”); see id. (“Typically, a
Sulphur rate must be greater than 4 phr.”), and (“Typically, the stearic acid
rate should be less than 1 phr.”). As the Examiner points out, these general
statements do not provide sufficient factual evidence that Mangeret’s rubber
Appeal 2018-006688
Application 14/351,820

6
compositions could not or would not have been used in a crown ply with
metal cords, as in Radulescu. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the
declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroborations warrants
discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”).
Mangeret teaches that its rubber compositions, which have good
mechanical properties (e.g., low hysteresis), are used in cord reinforced tire
components including crown plies. Ans. 3 (citing Mangeret 3:35–44). Based
on Mangeret’s teaching, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
determining that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to use Mangeret’s rubber composition in the crown plies of Radulescu’s
tires. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[O]ur case
law does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or
the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide
motivation for the current invention.”); see also KSR Int’l Co. v Teleflex
Inc., 550 US 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”).
Appellant argues that combining Radulescu and Mangeret is improper
because “the proposed combination of Radulescu and Mangeret would
frustrate the intended purpose of Radulescu.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant
further argues that the Examiner has not identified any reason why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found fault with Radulescu’s tire, why
one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use Mangeret’s rubber
composition to form Radulescu’s circumferential reinforcement element,
Appeal 2018-006688
Application 14/351,820

7
and has not provided any beneficial result that would come of the proposed
combination. Id. at 16.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant has not directed us to sufficient factual evidence that Radulescu
limits the mechanical properties of the rubber composition used in the crown
plies of its tires or that Mangeret limits the use of its rubber composition to
use in tires without metallic reinforcement elements. In other words,
Appellant has not directed us to sufficient factual evidence supporting the
contention that Mangeret’s rubber composition is incompatible or would
frustrate Radulescu’s intended purpose. Attorney arguments cannot take the
place of evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
The Examiner has provided a rationale for combining Radulescu and
Mangeret. Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 7. On this record, Appellant fails to direct us
to sufficient factual evidence or provide an adequate technical explanation to
establish why the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining the
teachings of the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention lacks a rational
underpinning or is otherwise based on some other reversible error.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, in the Final Office Action,
and in the Answer, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3–12.
Claims 2 and 13
Appellant does not make additional arguments for the patentability of
separately rejected claims 2 and 13 from those presented for claim 1,
discussed above. Appeal Br. 17. Because we find no insufficiency in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Radulescu and Mangeret, we sustain
the rejections of claims 2 and 13.
Appeal 2018-006688
Application 14/351,820

8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–13 are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–12 103(a) Radulescu,
Mangeret
1, 3–12
2 103(a) Radulescu,
Mangeret,
Imamiya
2
13 103(a) Radulescu,
Mangeret, Wilkins
13
Overall
Outcome
1–13

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED