Ex Parte JensenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 201612089195 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/089, 195 12/02/2008 4743 7590 07/29/2016 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 233 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE 6300 WILLIS TOWER CHICAGO, IL 60606-6357 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joergen M. Jensen 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. 06007/43866 1289 EXAMINER BELLINGER, JASON R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2016 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): mgbdocket@marshallip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOERGEN M. JENSEN Appeal2014-006746 Application 12/089,195 1 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MEL VIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies GKN Land Systems Limited as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2014-006746 Application 12/089,195 BACKGROUND The claims are directed to a wheel construction. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A wheel construction including a wheel rim which in use, receives a tire, the rim being circular and having axially inner and outer portions each of which provides a flange which in use provides a seat for a bead of the tire, and the wheel construction including a mid-portion between the inner and outer portions, and side parts, connecting the mid and inner and outer portions, the mid-portion including a circumferential well where the radius of the wheel rim is a minimum, at least one of the side parts including a plurality of curved regions, the plurality of curved regions each being immediately adjacent to each other whereby the side part is continuously undulate, and wherein the curved regions provide at least a further two circumferential wells, and in that for each adjacent two curved regions, there is an effective angle between a plane normal to the axis of the wheel and a line struck tangentially at a point of inflection between the two curved regions at a tire side of the rim, of between 25° and 45° at any cross-sectional position around the rim. REJECTIONS Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-3, 10, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bonning (US 6,474,385 Bl, iss. Nov. 5, 2 Appeal2014-006746 Application 12/089,195 2002) and Muhlhoff (US 6,892,777 B2, iss. May 17, 2005). Final Act. 2-3. 2. Claims 4, 6, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bonning, Muhlhoff, and Billieres (US 5,318,088, iss. June 7, 1994). Final Act. 3--4. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Bonning substantially teaches the claimed wheel construction but "does not disclose the angle of the curved regions (14-15) being between 25 and 45 degrees." Final Act. 2. The Examiner further finds that "Muhlhoff teaches the angle COj of a curved region that is 45 degrees" and reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious "to form the rim of Bonning et al in the manner taught by Muhlhoff for the purpose of increasing retention of the tire bead on the rim." Id. Appellant argues that the "Examiner has not presented sound reasoning, and supporting evidence, explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would apply aspects of Muhlhoff' s rectilinear rim to Bonning' s curved rim in a manner that would result in the claimed wheel construction." Appeal Br. 9-10. Appellant takes particular issue with the Examiner's stated reason for the combination, arguing that "the Examiner cites absolutely no evidence in support of this assertion" and that "[ t ]he angle COj of the truncated conical portion 18" has nothing to do with 'increasing retention of the tire bead on the rim' as alleged by the Examiner." Id. We agree with Appellant. Muhlhoff explains that: FIG. 3 also shows the variant in which the seat 12' (12") is extended axially inwards by a truncated conical portion 18' 3 Appeal2014-006746 Application 12/089,195 (18 11) whose generatrix 1801 (180 11), relative to a line parallel to the rotation axis, makes an angle of COj larger than the angle Oj. In the case considered the said angle COj is equal to 45°, which facilitates the positioning of the bearing support bead. Muhlhoff 6:49--55 (emphasis omitted). Similarly, Muhlhoff explains that "the mounting of the bearing support beads is greatly facilitated" by the truncated-conical feature described in the passage above. Id. at 2:63-3:7. Through these descriptions, Muhlhoff teaches that the feature relied on by the Examiner-the angle cor--contributes to the tire-mounting process, not the retention of the tire bead on the rim. Thus, the Examiner has not provided "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." See In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, because all of the Examiner's rejections rely on the same reasoning discussed above (see Final Act. 2--4), we do not sustain any of the rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13-20 are reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation