Colby, E. Bruce. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2019

14389203 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
14/389,203 09/29/2014 E. Bruce Colby P50-0450-US-PCT 5965
77432 7590 12/17/2019
HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP - MICHELIN
200 Public Square, Suite 2800
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
MAKI, STEVEN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2019 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):
PATENTS@HAHNLAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte E. BRUCE COLBY, DIMITRI G. TSIHLAS, and
CESAR E. ZARAK

Appeal 2019-000683
Application 14/389,203
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARK NAGUMO, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, 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, 3–5, 7–9, 11–15, 17, 18, 22, and 26–
30. 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 Etablissements Michelin and Michelin Recherche et Technique
S.A. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000683
Application 14/389,203

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a precured tire tread comprising a tread
thickness, a longitudinal groove 16 extending into the tread thickness, and a
plurality of strengthening members 24 forming protrusions extending into
the longitudinal groove from the groove bottom, the strengthening members
being arranged every 10 mm or less along a length of the longitudinal
groove (independent claim 1, Figs. 2–5). Appellant also claims a method for
forming such a precured tire tread (remaining independent claim 22). Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A precured tire tread comprising:
a tread thickness bounded by a top side and a bottom side
and opposing lateral sides, the tire tread bottom side configured
to be attached to an annular tire carcass;
a longitudinal groove extending into the tread thickness
from the tread top side and terminating within a thickness of the
tread at a groove bottom, the longitudinal groove having a
width defined by a pair of opposing sides and the groove
bottom being spaced from the bottom side of the tread by an
undertread thickness, where the undertread thickness is equal to
1.5 mm or less; and,
a plurality of strengthening members forming protrusions
extending into the longitudinal groove from the groove bottom
and from at least one side of the pair of opposing groove sides,
the plurality of strengthening members being arranged every 10
mm or less along a length of the longitudinal groove.
REJECTIONS
Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–
5, 7–9, 11–15, 17, 18, 22, and 26–29 as unpatentable over Japan 622 (2002-
067622, published Mar. 8, 2002, as translated) in view of any one of Burche
(US 4,353,402, issued Oct. 12, 1982), Hoke (US 3,727,661, issued Apr. 17,
1973), German 930 (DE 102007016930 A1, published Oct. 9, 2008, as
Appeal 2019-000683
Application 14/389,203

3
translated), Godefroid (US 2005/0126670 A1, published June 16, 2005),
Korea 022 (KR2002-0003022, published Jan. 10, 2002, as translated) or
Suzuki (US 2009/0194213 A1, published Aug. 6, 2009) and rejects claim 30
over these references in combination with Japan 010 (JP 08-268010,
published Oct. 15, 1996).2
OPINION
We sustain the § 103 rejections for the reasons given in the Final
Office Action, the Examiner’s Answer, and below.
In rejecting representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Japan 622
discloses a precured tire tread comprising a tread thickness having a
longitudinal groove but does not disclose strengthening members forming
protrusions extending into the longitudinal groove as claimed (Final Act. 3–
8). The Examiner finds that the secondary references applied in rejecting
claim 1 teach providing a longitudinal groove in a tire tread with protrusions
for a variety of purposes and concludes that it would have been obvious to
provide the longitudinal groove of Japan 622 with protrusions of the type
and for the purpose taught by each of the alternatively applied secondary
references (id. at 5–7). The Examiner additionally finds that the secondary
references teach spacing their protrusions every 10 mm or less along the
longitudinal groove length and concludes that it would have been obvious to

2 Appellant presents the same arguments regarding independent claims 1 and
22 but does not present separate arguments specifically directed to the
dependent claims under rejection (Appeal Br. 11–14). Therefore, we select
claim 1 as representative of the issues before us, and the remaining claims
under rejection will stand or fall with this representative claim.
Appeal 2019-000683
Application 14/389,203

4
so-space the protrusions of modified Japan 622 as taught by each of these
alternatively applied secondary references (id. at 7–8).
Appellant argues “adding the claimed strengthening members [i.e.,
protrusions] to the groove bottom would be contrary to the purpose of Japan
622” (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant states that Japan 622 makes the groove
depth deeper than was conventional in order to achieve a reduced undertread
thickness without removing material from the bottom of the undertread (id.
(citing Japan 622 ¶ 17)). Appellant argues “one of ordinary skill would not
add any projections corresponding to the claimed strengthening members as
the addition of the projections would result in adding material that was
previously removed during the molding process (i.e., material at the bottom
of the groove in order to achieve the reduced undertread thickness)” (id.).
In the rejection, the Examiner finds “Japan 622 teaches that the
undertread thickness is the distance from the deepest part of the groove to
the back side of the precured tread and that the depth of the deepest part of
the groove is unchanged by the protrusions suggested by [each of the
secondary references]” (Final Act. 6–7). The Examiner responds to
Appellant’s arguments by reiterating these findings (Ans. 14–15, 17). The
Examiner emphasizes that “[w]hen Japan 622’s longitudinal groove is
provided with protrusions as per . . . [each of the secondary references], the
undertread thickness is determined by the distance between the deepest part
of the groove and the back surface of the precured tread instead of the
distance between the upper surface of the protrusions and the back surface of
the precured tread [as implied by Appellant]” (id. at 17).
Appellant replies to the Examiner’s position with the argument that
“by adding strengthening members [i.e. protrusions] along the groove
Appeal 2019-000683
Application 14/389,203

5
bottom [of Japan 622], locally, the groove bottom thickness is increased at
the location of each strengthening member, which in effect reverses and
counteracts the benefits achieved by Japan 622” (Reply Br. 3).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings that Japan 622
teaches undertread thickness is determined from the deepest part of the
groove (see JP 622 claim 1, ¶ 6) and that the depth of this deepest part would
be unchanged by the addition of protrusions (see generally Appeal Br.,
Reply Br.). In addition, we observe that Appellant offers no evidence in
support of the arguments that protrusions in Japan 622’s longitudinal groove
“would be contrary to the purpose of Japan 622” (Appeal Br. 12) or
“reverses and counteracts the benefits achieved by Japan 622” (Reply Br. 3).
On the other hand, the Examiner’s uncontested findings support a
determination that, because the benefits of Japan 622’s reduced undertread
thickness are achievable despite the presence of groove parts less deep than
the deepest groove part, these benefits likewise would be achievable despite
the presence of groove protrusions whose upper surfaces are less deep than
the deepest groove part.
Appellant also argues without elaboration that, even if the longitudinal
grooves of Japan 622 were provided with protrusions, “such projections [i.e.,
protrusions] do not amount to the claimed strengthening members at least in
frequency to operate as strengthening members” (Appeal Br. 14).
However, this argument does not address, and therefore does not show
error in, the Examiner’s rationale for concluding that it would have been
obvious to space the protrusions with the claimed frequency of every 10 mm
or less (Final Act. 7–8).
Appeal 2019-000683
Application 14/389,203

6
For the reasons given above and expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Examiner’s Answer, Appellant’s arguments fail to demonstrate
reversible error in the rejections of representative claim 1 and the other
claims before us.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–
15, 17, 18, 22, and 26–30.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7–9,
11–15, 17,
18, 22, 26–
29
103(a) Japan 622, Burche,
Hoke, German
930, Godefroid,
Korea 022, Suzuki
1, 3–5, 7–9,
11–15, 17,
18, 22, 26–
29

30 103(a) Japan 622, Burche,
Hoke, German
930, Godefroid,
Korea 022, Suzuki,
Japan 010
30
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 7–9,
11–15, 17,
18, 22, 26–
30

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).
Appeal 2019-000683
Application 14/389,203

7
AFFIRMED