Ex Parte HINQUE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

14963699 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/963,699 12/09/2015 Daniel Paul Luc Marie HINQUE
27280 7590 09/12/2018
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
200 Innovation Way
AKRON, OH 44316-0001
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DN2015-008 4439
EXAMINER
KOTTER, KIP T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2018 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):
kathleen.swisher@goodyear.com
patents@ good year.com
pair_goodyear@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL PAUL LUC MARIE HINQUE
Appeal2017-010202
Application 14/963,699
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as "The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company." (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2017-010202
Application 14/963,699
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to the Appellant, the present invention relates "to a new
and useful tire air maintenance system in the automotive field." (Spec. ,r 1.)
Sole Independent Claim on Appeal
1. An air maintenance system comprising:
a rotating inner ring secured to a vehicle wheel;
a stationary outer ring maintaining a constant angular
position;
an occlusion roller rotationally fixed to the stationary
outer ring, the occlusion roller having a protruding portion
centered axially at a radially outer surface of the occlusion
roller with axially outer portions of the occlusion roller being
radially recessed from the protruding portion and supported by
bearing surfaces of the rotating inner ring;
spacer rollers rotationally fixed to the stationary outer
ring and rotationally supported by the bearing surfaces of the
rotating inner ring; and
a flexible tube defining a pump cavity, the air
maintenance system pumping a fluid from the ambient
environment into a pneumatic tire by applying an occluding
force against the flexible tube, periodically occluding portions
of the pump cavity,
the spacer rollers having axially outer surfaces for
rotational support by bearing surfaces of the rotating inner ring
and a recess centered axially at the outer surface of the spacer
rollers for avoiding any contact between the spacer rollers and
the flexible tube.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as
indefinite. (Final Action 2.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "[ a ]n air maintenance system" comprising
"a rotating inner ring," "an occlusion roller," and "spacer rollers." (Appeal
2
Appeal2017-010202
Application 14/963,699
Br., Claims App.) A "view of part" of the air maintenance system is shown
in Figure 1 (Spec. ,r 61 ), and a "view of another part" of the air maintenance
system is shown in Figure 2 (id.), both of which are reproduced below.
Fi ure 1
20 11
11
_ ........ .,.·· ....•. ,·· .... .,·
The above drawings show "an inner ring 11," and "bearing surfaces 12 on
the inner ring 11." (Id. ,r 71.)2 One of the above drawings (Figure 1), shows
2 The inner ring is described as a "rotating inner ring" that "may rotate with
the rotating wheel." (Spec. ,r 64.)
3
Appeal2017-010202
Application 14/963,699
an "occlusion roller 50" having "axially outer portions" that are "supported
by bearing surfaces 12 on the inner ring 11." (Id. ,r 71.) The other of the
above drawings (Figure 2), shows that spacer rollers 70 "may have axially
outer surfaces 71 for rotational support by the bearing surfaces 12 of the
inner ring 11." (Id. ,r 72.) In other words, axially outer portions of the
occlusion roller 50 and axially outer surfaces of the spacer rollers 70 are
supported on the same bearings surfaces 12 of the inner ring 11.
Independent claim 1 sequentially recites that 1) axially outer portions
of the occlusion roller are "supported by bearing surfaces of the rotating
inner ring," 2) the spacer rollers are "rotationally supported by the bearing
surfaces of the rotating inner ring," and 3) the spacer rollers have "outer
surfaces for rotational support by bearing surfaces of the rotating inner ring."
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner determines that independent
claim 1 is indefinite "because it is unclear whether the 'bearing surfaces of
the rotating inner ring'" in the third recital "refers to the previously recited
'bearing surfaces of the rotating inner ring"' in the first and second recitals.
(Final Action 2.)
The Appellant argues "that it is clear the 'bearing surfaces of the
rotating inner ring' means the same structure each time this combination of
words is used in claim 1." (Appeal Br. 4.)
We agree with the Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon
reading the written description and/or looking at the drawings contained in
the Specification, would understand that each recital of "bearing surfaces of
the rotating inner ring" corresponds to the same bearing surfaces. As
discussed above, the Specification conveys that the outer portions of the
occlusion roller 50 and the axially outer surfaces of the spacer rollers 70 are
4
Appeal2017-010202
Application 14/963,699
supported on the same bearings surfaces 12 of the inner ring 11. Indeed,
bearing surfaces 12 are the only bearing surfaces described and depicted in
the Specification. (See Spec. ,r,r 3, 6, 15, 64, 71, 72, Figs. 1-3.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2-10 and 12-18 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b).
As for dependent claim 11, the Examiner determines it is indefinite
for a reason beyond its dependency on independent claim 1. (See Final
Action 3.) The Appellant expresses what appears to be a sincere intent to
resolve the alleged indefiniteness by an amendment after appeal. (See
Appeal Br. 4.) However, our review is necessarily confined to the version of
dependent claim 11 pending at the time of this appeal. And, as noted by the
Examiner, "the Appellant has not argued the impropriety of the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) rejection of claim 11." (Answer 3.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ).
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-18.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claim 11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5