Ex Parte HINQUEDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 10, 201814963699 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation