Ex Parte Weaver et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

13585904 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/585,904 08/15/2012 Douglas Raymond Weaver
27280 7590 11/02/2018
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.
DN2012-092 7104
EXAMINER
WILSON, MICHAEL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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 DOUGLAS RAYMOND WEA VER
and LAWRENCE DEAN SHULL
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1--4 and 6-9. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appellants' invention is directed to a tire building drum without a
center sleeve (Spec. ,r 1 ).
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company" (Br. 3).
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are illustrative ( emphasis added):
1. A tire building drum comprising: a rotatable drum
having a first and second shoulder section and a center section
positioned therebetween, each shoulder section having a bead
lock mechanism, wherein the center section has a first axially
outer end forming a first shoulder and a second axially outer
end forming a second shoulder, and wherein the center section
extends between the first axially outer end and the second
axially outer end, wherein said center section is not covered by
a sleeve that extends from the first axially outer end to the
second axially outer end of the center section, wherein a first
shoulder seal is mounted on the first shoulder and a second
shoulder seal is mounted on the second shoulder, wherein each
shoulder seal has a first end received in a clamp and a second
portion that extends over its respective shoulder of the center
section terminating in a free end, wherein each free end is
located axially between the clamps.
8. A tire building drum comprising: a rotatable drum
having a first and second section, each section having a bead
lock mechanism, said rotatable drum further comprising a
radially expandable center section positioned between the bead
lock mechanisms, wherein the center section has a first axially
outer end forming a first shoulder and a second axially outer
end forming a second shoulder, and wherein a first shoulder
seal is located on the first shoulder and a second shoulder seal
is located on the second shoulder, wherein each shoulder seal
has a free end that extends over its respective shoulder towards
an axial midpoint of the center section, but does not extend past
the axial midpoint, and a fixed end that is located axially
inward of its nearest one of the bead lock mechanism, and
wherein there is no rubber seal located between the free end of
the first shoulder seal and the free end of the second shoulder
seal.
9. A tire building drum comprising: a rotatable drum
having a first and second shoulder section and a center section
positioned therebetween, each shoulder section having a bead
lock mechanism, wherein the center section has a first axially
outer end forming a first shoulder and a second axially outer
2
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
end forming a second shoulder, and wherein the center section
extends between the first axially outer end and the second
axially outer end, wherein said center section is not covered by
a sleeve which covers the axial middle of the center section,
wherein a first shoulder seal is mounted on the first shoulder
and a second shoulder seal is mounted on the second shoulder,
wherein each shoulder seal has a first end received in a clamp
and a second free end that extends over its respective shoulder
of the center section towards the axial midpoint of the center
section, and wherein each clamp is located between its nearest
one of the bead lock mechanism and the center section.
Appellants appeal the following rejections: 2
1. Claims 1--4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Appellants' Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A") in view
of Connor (US 6,012,500, issued Jan. 11, 2000), Roedseth et al. (US
2006/0137825 Al, published June 29, 2006, "Roedseth"), and Martin
et al. (DE 2317655, published Oct. 24, 1974, and relying on a
translation dated Dec. 28, 2015, "Martin").
2. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Martin in view of Vanderzee (US 4,269,649, issued
May 26, 1981).
3. Claims 1--4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Lowe et al. (GB 1,113,622, published May 15,
1968, "Lowe") in view ofBaldoni et al. (US 6,360,802 Bl, issued
Mar. 26, 2002, "Baldoni").
As a preliminary matter, the Examiner also rejects Claims 8 and 9 are
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to point
2 The Examiner withdrew the written description rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 made in the Final Office Action dated Oct. 26, 2016 (Ans. 2).
3
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
out and particularly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the
invention. Appellants do not specifically contest the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection (Br. 5; Ans. 2). Therefore, we summarily
affirm the Examiner's uncontested 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection.
With respect to the rejections that Appellants specifically contest,
Appellants do not argue any of the dependent claims separately from the
other. See generally Br. Accordingly, we select independent claims 1, 8,
and 9 as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
REJECTION (I):
The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding AAP A, Connor,
Roedseth, and Martin, are located on pages 6-10 of the Final Office Action.
It is well understood that "[r ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot
be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The
fact that a reference may be modified to reflect features of the claimed
invention does not make the modification, and hence the claimed invention,
obvious unless the prior art, knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in
the art, or the nature of the problem to be solved suggested the desirability of
such modification. In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this instance, Appellants argue, inter alia, that if the ordinary
skilled artisan had applied the teachings of AAP A, Connor, Roedseth, and
4
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
Martin to construct a tire building drum, then the drum would not have
possessed the claimed shoulder seals, wherein each shoulder seal's free end:
(i) "is located axially between the clamps" ( claim 1 ); or (ii) extends towards
an axial midpoint of the center section (claims 8, 9; see Br. 11-12).
Connor's Figure 8, which illustrates a sectional view of a tire carcass
mounted on a tire building machine, is reproduced below.
10~
FIG-8
14-4 146
124
--
116
108
13.2
Figure 8 illustrates features of tire carcass 124 contacting left and
right sleeve 100, each sleeve having an end 108 and the other end (106,
annotation not shown) in contact with clamp 114.
5
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
Connor's Figure 10, which illustrates an enlarged view of the top left
quarter of Figure 8, is reproduced below.
'~ 11 11 .. ,,u, ,.,<.--./9
jJJw·
128
122
108
FIG-10
Figure 10 illustrates features of the left section of tire carcass 124
contacting left sleeve 100, in section, each sleeve having an end 108 and the
other end (106, annotation not shown) in contact with clamp 114.
The Examiner finds that Connor's sleeve 100 and end 108 disclose or
suggest the claimed "shoulder seal" and "free end," thereof, respectively.
See Act 3. The Examiner further finds that "[u]sing the existing clamps [70]
of the drum of AAP A-as recommended by Connor-to hold shoulder seals
would result in shoulder seals clamped between the bead lock mechanisms
and having free ends curved around the expanding shoulder towards the
center of the drum's center section" (Final Act. 7-8; see also Ans. 3--4;
Spec. Fig. 3, ,r 5).
We determine that the Examiner has not adequately explained why the
claimed free end orientation or any free ends, for that matter, would have
6
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
resulted from use of the AAPA's existing clamps 70 to hold shoulder seals.
In view of the absence of any free ends along AAPA's sleeve A (see Spec.
Fig. 3), 3 the Examiner has not clearly articulated how Connor's teachings
disclose or suggest the disputed limitations. We note that Connor, along
with Martin, are the only references in the cited prior art that disclose the
free ends of shoulder seals. 4 Thus, we tum next to whether Connor, in view
of Martin, would have suggested the claimed free end orientation.
Regarding Connor's teachings, there is no dispute that Connor does
not teach or suggest the claimed free end orientation. As Appellants argue,
Connor instead teaches a tire building drum with "the free end of the seal ...
outside of the clamps and in a direction away from the drum center" (Br. 11;
Ans. 3 (the Examiner "acknowledges and agrees that this is true."); see also
Connor Figs. 8, 10 (left end 108 of left sleeve 100 extends away from the
drum center in which left clamp 114 is located)).
With respect to Martin's teachings, the Examiner finds that "Martin
provides ... evidence that reconfiguring a center sleeve into two seals that
are clamped at one end and free at the other end would result in free ends
extending towards the center of the drum" (Ans. 4 (citing Martin Figure 1)).
3 The axially outer ends of the AAPA's sleeve A are substantially identical
to the shoulder seal ends 62a and 62b shown in Figure 2 ( compare Spec.
Fig. 2 with id. at Fig. 3). The Examiner's findings are based on the
assumption that ends 62a and 62b are not free as they are received in
existing clamps 70. See Ans. 3; Spec. Fig. 2.
4 In other words, the AAP A primary reference is silent regarding this
feature. Compare Spec. Fig. 3 with id. at Fig. 4, which depicts AP AA sleeve
A without free ends 64a or 64b ).
7
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
Martin's Figure 1, which illustrates an axial section through the top
left quarter of a tire building machine with a stretched carcass, is reproduced
below:
FIG.1
4
2
\
...... -- ... . ·::. -.".:.~- ....... ·+· ·- --~ "" .----::
I .. --· ·········-· . ···---r- ,. ---- . -
---~i-----t---+-----
11 1
Figure 1 illustrates features of the left section of tire carcass 4
contacting left membrane 8, in section, having a first end 9, which is in
contact with clamp ring 7, and free edge 10.
The Examiner finds that Martin's free edge 10 discloses or suggests
the claimed "free end" (Final Act. 8; Ans. 4).
Appellants contend that Martin's "free end of the seal would be
outside of the clamps and in a direction away from the drum center." Id.
Appellants' arguments are incorrect because Martin's free edge 10
extends in a direction between left and right clamps 7 and toward the drum
center. See Martin Fig. 1. Nonetheless, the Examiner has not provided any
finding that Martin suggests the desirability of modifying the direction in
which Connor's end 108 extends. In other words, the Examiner has not
provided adequate reasoning to explain why a person of skill in the art, in
8
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
view of Martin's free edge 10, would have modified Connor's left end 108
of left sleeve 100 to extend toward the drum center and axially to the right of
left clamp 114. See Connor Fig. 8, 10; Martin Fig. 1. The Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness based upon articulated
reasoning with rationale underpinnings.
Thus, the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner are insufficient
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as to independent claims 1, 8,
and 9. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-9 for the
reasons set forth above. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
REJECTION (II):
The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Martin and
Vanderzee are located on pages 10-11 of the Final Office Action.
Appellants argue that the ordinary skilled artisan would have known
that tire components are placed on a center section of a tire building drum in
order to build the tire, but the cited prior art describes drums without a center
section (Br. 12). Appellants further argue that "a person skilled in the art of
tire building drums utilizing common sense, would have no inventive
[reason] to modify Martin with Vanderzee to arrive at [Appellants']
invention" because "neither Martin nor Vanderzee is concerned with tire
building drums having a center section." Id.
The Examiner responds by determining that "[ t ]he broadest
reasonable interpretation of the phrase 'center section' in [claims 1 and 9] is
a section in the center" (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that the"[ c ]entrally-
located section of Martin which extends from 7 on the left side to a[] non-
diagrammed 7 on the right side is a 'center section' because it is a section in
the center of the drum." Id.; see Martin Fig. 1.
9
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
The present appeal thus requires our interpretation of the language of
claims 1 and 9, particularly our construction of the term "center section."
During prosecution, the PTO gives the language of the proposed
claims "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking
into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that
may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We first note that the Specification does not describe, nor have
Appellants proffered in the Brief, a definition for the term "center section."
In the absence of any definitions or evidence of the disputed term's meaning
as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner's
interpretation based upon the plain meaning of center section is reasonable.
We, furthermore, agree with the Examiner that Appellants' arguments are
drawn to an intended use of the claimed tire building drum's "center
section." Therefore, we conclude that the term "center section," as recited in
claims 1 and 9, encompasses Martin's section in the center of the drum.
On this record, we find that Appellants' arguments have not identified
reversible error in the Examiner's combination of Martin and Vanderzee to
render claims 1 and 9 obvious. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection of
claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 for the reasons set forth above, in the Final Office
Action, and in the Answer. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
REJECTION (III):
The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Lowe and
Baldoni are located on pages 12-14 of the Final Office Action.
10
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must
show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by
the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In this instance, the Examiner has not shown that Baldoni teaches or
suggests that each shoulder seal: (i) "has a first end received in a clamp"
( claim 1 ); (ii) "has a free end ... and a fixed end'' ( claim 8); or (iii) "has a
first end received in a clamp and a second free end" ( claim 9) ( emphasis
added).
Baldoni's Figure 4, which illustrates an axial section of a tire building
drum, is reproduced below.
Figure 4 illustrates features of the left section of tire body ply 4
defined by lateral portion 6 turned about metal bead 7, surrounded by an
annular filler 8. Figure 4 further illustrates features of compressed air fed
11
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
through hole 41 into bladder 58, which once inflated, compresses lateral
portion 6 of body ply 4 onto filler 8.
The Examiner's annotation of Baldoni' s Figure 1, which illustrates an
enlarged axial section of a tire building drum with bellow in rest position, is
reproduced below.
f!gur€> l of Ila!i:!m1i
Annotated Figure 1 illustrates features of bladder 58 including inner
reinforcing shoe 60, which is housed in an annular groove formed along
surface 55 of block 50, and distal free end above 22.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Baldoni discloses or
suggest the claimed shoulder seal, which is clamped at one end 41 (Final
Act. 12 (citing Baldoni Fig. 1)). However, Baldoni describes feature 41 not
as a clamped free end, but as a hole 41 for feeding air into bladder 58
(Baldoni 5: 16). Even assuming the Examiner is referring to shoe 59 of
bladder 58 (see id. at Fig. 1, 4:25-27) as disclosing or suggesting the
claimed first end received in a clamp, the Examiner's finding is erroneous.
Shoe 59 is not the terminal end of bladder 58. Rather, shoe 59 surrounds
12
Appeal 2018-00013 8
Application 13/585,904
hole 41 and bladder 58 terminates without a shoe or clamped feature at
surface 55a. See Fig. 1.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, the Examiner finds that
"[ c ]lamped/fixed end 60 is between bead lock 64 and shoulder 50, [with] the
material of the shoulder seal extending freely above shoulder 50 and
terminating in a distal free end adjacent to 23" (Ans. 10; see also Final Act.
13-14; Baldoni Figs. 1--4). However, Baldoni does not disclose or suggest
the requisite "fixed end" ( claim 8) or "first end received in a clamp" ( claim
9), each at the non-free end of a shoulder seal, because shoe 60 is not located
at the terminal end ofbladder 58. See Baldoni Fig. 1; Ans. 9. As explained
above, bladder 58 ends without a shoe or clamped feature at surface 55a.
See Baldoni Fig. 1. Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that Baldoni
teaches or suggests that claimed features of each shoulder seal.
In sum, we find that the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner
are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as to
independent claims 1, 8, and 9. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection of
claims 1--4 and 6-9 for the reasons set forth above. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13