Ex Parte Georges et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 10, 201512339585 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FRANCOIS PIERRE CHARLES GERARD GEORGES, JEAN-MICHEL ALPHONSE FERNAND GILLARD, ROLAND WILLIBRORD KRIER, VINCENT BENOIT MATHONET, and BERNARD ROBERT NICOLAS1 ____________ Appeal 2013-004111 Application 12/339,585 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision2 finally rejecting claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 21, which are all of the claims pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The real party in interest is said to be Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of Akron, Ohio. (Appeal Brief filed August 7, 2012 (“App. Br.”) at 3.) 2 Final Action mailed March 7, 2012 (“Final Act.”) at 2–7 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 31, 2012 (“Ans.”) at 3–6. Appeal 2013-004111 Application 12/339,585 2 The subject matter on appeal is directed to “a pneumatic tire comprising a tread, a carcass, and a zigzag belt [reinforcing] structure interposed between the carcass and the tread.” (Spec. 1, ¶ [003].) This zigzag belt reinforcing structure is said to be: formed of at least two layers of cords interwoven together from a strip of rubber reinforced with one or more cords, wherein the strip forming the zigzag belt structure is layed up in a first zigzag winding extending from a first lateral belt edge to a second lateral belt edge in a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W1 followed by a second amplitude W2 in the opposite direction of said first amplitude. The zigzag belt structure is additionally layed up in a second zigzag winding extending from a first lateral belt edge to a second lateral belt edge in a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W2 followed by a second amplitude W1 in the opposite direction of said first amplitude. [(Id.)] The term “winding” is defined as “the pattern of the trip formed in a first revolution of the strip around a tire building drum, tire or core.” (Spec. 4, ¶ [0023].) Figures 5A and 5B illustrate such first and second zigzag windings. Figure 5A shows first zigzag strip winding 50 wherein a first amplitude designated as W1 is followed by a second amplitude designated as W2 in opposite directions Appeal 2013-004111 Application 12/339,585 3 from the centerplane, with W1 being greater than W2. (See also Spec. 8–9, ¶ [0045].) Figure 5B shows first zigzag strip winding 50 in the form of a dotted line and second zigzag strip winding 52 in the form of a solid line, wherein second zigzag winding 52 is defined by a first amplitude designated as W2 followed by a second amplitude designated as W1 in opposite directions from the centerplane. (See also Spec. 9, ¶ [0045].) “The second winding has been indexed a desired distance from the first winding, and thus may abut (as shown), overlap or be spaced apart.” (Id.) The zigzag belt structure includes “N zigzag waves per 1 drum revolution, wherein N is .25 or greater. N may also be an integer ≥ 1.” (Spec. 10, ¶ [0048].) Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative claim 1,3 which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 1. A pneumatic tire comprising a tread, a carcass and a zigzag belt structure interposed between the carcass and the tread, wherein the zigzag belt structure is formed of at least two layers of cords interwoven together from a strip of rubber reinforced with one or more cords, wherein the strip forming the zigzag belt structure is layed up in a first zigzag winding extending from a first lateral belt edge to a second lateral belt edge in a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W1 followed by a second amplitude W2 in the opposite direction of said first amplitude, wherein the strip forming the zigzag belt structure is layed up in a second zigzag winding extending from a first lateral belt edge to a second lateral belt edge in a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W2 followed by a second amplitude W1 in the opposite direction of said first amplitude, wherein the zigzag belt structure has N zigzag waves per winding wherein N is < 1. 3 Appellants argue for reversal of the Examiner’s §103(a) rejections set forth in the Final Rejection and the Answer based on the limitations of claim 1. (App. Br. 4– 6.) Appellants do not present any separate arguments for the limitations of the remaining claims on appeal. (Id.) Therefore, we limit our discussion to claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2012). Appeal 2013-004111 Application 12/339,585 4 (App. Br. 7 (emphasis added).) The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: 1. Claims 1 through 8, 10 through 15, and 17 through 204 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Iseki 5 and Kobayashi;6 and 2. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Iseki, Kobayashi, and Ueyoko. 7 (Final Act. 2–6 and Ans. 3– 6.) DISCUSSION Upon consideration of the evidence on this record in light of the arguments advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we find that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the collective teachings of the applied prior art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the subject matter recited in claims 1–8 and 10– 21 as required for a determination of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Accordingly, we sustain 4 Although the Examiner inadvertently did not include claim 12 in the statement of the rejection set forth in the Final Rejection and the Answer, it is apparent from the body of the rejection that claim 12 is also rejected in this rejection. (Final Act. 5–6 and Ans. 7.) Indeed, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1–8 and 10–21, which are all of the claims pending in the above- identified application. (App. Br. 3.) 5 EP 0 501 782 A2 published in the name of Iseki et al. on September 2, 1992 (“Iseki”). 6 JP 2002-321506 A published in the name of Kobayashi et al. on November 5, 2002 (“Kobayashi”). Our reference to Kobayashi is to the corresponding English translation of record. 7 US 2005/0056359 A1 published in the name of Ueyoko et al. on March 17, 2005 (“Ueyoko”). Appeal 2013-004111 Application 12/339,585 5 the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of the above claims for the reasons set forth in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Iseki discloses a pneumatic tire comprising a tread, a carcass and a zigzag belt structure interposed between the carcass and the tread, wherein the zigzag belt structure is formed of at least two layers of cords interwoven together from a strip of rubber reinforced with one or more cords and wherein the strip forming the zigzag belt structure “is layed up” in at least first and second zigzag windings between the edges of the belt as required by claim 1. (Compare Ans. 4–5 with App. Br. 4–6.) Rather, Appellants contend that Iseki’s Figure 10 relied upon by the Examiner does not describe or suggest a first zigzag winding “in a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W1 followed by a second amplitude W2 in the opposite direction of the first amplitude” and a second zigzag winding “in a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W2 followed by a second amplitude W1 in the opposite direction of the said first amplitude” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 5.) However, this contention is not well taken. As explained by the Examiner, Iseki’s Figure 10, like Appellants’ Figure 5B discussed supra, depicts a first zigzag winding “in a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W1 followed by a second amplitude W2 in the opposite direction of the first amplitude” and a second zigzag winding “in a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W2 followed by a second amplitude W1 in the opposite of the said first amplitude” as recited in claim 1. (Ans. 9–10.) Although Appellants assert that the alternate shifting pattern described at column 5, lines 32–37, of Iseki indicates that its first and second windings depicted in Figure 10 involve a “W1W2W1W2” arrangement, rather than a “W1W2W2W1” arrangement as required by claim 1, they have not directed us to any part of the Specification or Appeal 2013-004111 Application 12/339,585 6 claims, which defines W1 and W2 or W2 and W1 used to designate the claimed first and second amplitudes of the first and second windings differently from W1 and W2 or W2 and W1 designations used by the Examiner in the context of the first and second amplitudes of the first and second zigzag windings depicted in Iseki’s Figure 10. (App. Br. 5.) Nor have Appellants proffered any evidence to show that W1 and W2 have the art recognized meanings contrary to the Examiner’s designation of W1 and W2 or W2 and W1in the context of the first and second amplitudes of the first and second zigzag windings shown in Iseki’s Figure 10. (Id.) Appellants also contend that Iseki does not teach “N < 1 wherein N is the number of cycles per revolution” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 5) In this regard, Appellants explain that: N is related to alpha, and as N increases alpha increases. Iseki does not mention the number of cycles, but states that the bias angle alpha should be in the range of 10 to 80 degrees. (Col. 4, lines 28-30) Depending upon the actual tire drum radius and width, as N decreases below 1, the angle alpha becomes very small, typically below 10 degrees. Applicant’s examples of N =1 (See Figures 9a- 9c) results in an alpha of 6.65 degrees. [(Id.)] Appellants then conclude that “a person skilled in the art applying common sense would not modify the Iseki reference to have an N less than 1 because it would destroy the teaching in Iseki that the bias angle alpha should be in the range of 10 to 80 degrees.” (App. Br. 5–6.) However, we do not agree with this conclusion. A found by the Examiner, Iseki teaches that a bias angle (alpha) “may be” in the range of 10 to 80 degrees. (See Ans. 11 and Iseki, col. 4, ll. 28–31.) Notwithstanding Appellants’ arguments to the contrary, Iseki does not teach that its bias angle (alpha) must be limited to 10 to 80 degrees. (Id.) The Examiner also found, and Appellants have not disputed, that: Appeal 2013-004111 Application 12/339,585 7 Kobayashi teaches a bias angle [(alpha)] of 3 to 15 degrees ([0018], this range overlaps with lower end of the angle range disclosed in Iseki [showing that a bias angle of 3 to 9 degrees is equally useful as the bias angle of 10 to 15 degrees included by Iseki in forming zigzag windings for a zigzag belt structure]) and a resulting zigzag belt winding showing an N less than 1[in the context of a pneumatic tire] …. [(Compare Ans. 11 with App. Br. 5–6.) Further, Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s finding that Kobayashi teaches that the employment of such bias angle enhances the durability of the resulting belt. (Compare Ans. 5 with App. Br. 4–6; see also Kobayashi 3, ¶ [0013].) Given the above teachings, we find that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge reflected in the collective teachings of Iseki and Kobayashi, would have been led to employ a bias angle (alpha) of 3 to 15 degrees to provide zigzag belt windings having N less than 1, as taught by Kobayashi, to form the reinforcing zigzag belt structure of the pneumatic tire taught by Iseki, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving belt durability. Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8 and 10– 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). ORDER In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) is affirmed. Appeal 2013-004111 Application 12/339,585 8 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation