Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2021

2020005506 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/503,741 02/14/2017 Wolfgang Reese 2014P03405WOUS 8228
137541 7590 08/12/2021
Continental
Intellectual Property
Jaedekamp, 30
Hannover, 30419
GERMANY
EXAMINER
FISCHER, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2021 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):
david.cate@continental.com
greg.adams@continental-corporation.com
patent@continental-corporation.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WOLFGANG REESE, REINHARD LUDWIG, HEINER VOLK,
THOMAS KRAMER, and MARCEL NEUMANN
____________

Appeal 2020-005506
Application 15/503,741
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 12–31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Continental Reifen Deutschland
GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005506
Application 15/503,741

2

The invention relates to a hybrid cord incorporated in a belt bandage
of a pneumatic vehicle tire. Appeal Br. 2; Spec. 1, 3. Independent claim 12
is illustrative of the subject matter claimed and is reproduced below:
12. A hybrid cord incorporated in a belt bandage of a
pneumatic vehicle tire, the hybrid cord comprising at least a
first yarn having a first end and a second yarn having a second
end, wherein the first end and the second end are twisted
together, and wherein the proportion of the first yarn in the
hybrid cord is 80-95% by weight and an asymmetry of the first
yarn and the second yarn is based on a shallow initial region of
a force/elongation curve;
wherein the first yarn is a high-modulus yarn with a specified
yarn fineness based on a selected residual elevation and
selected circumferential growth, wherein the second yarn being
is a low-modulus yarn and having a lower yarn fineness than
the first yarn, and wherein the yarn fineness of the first yarn in
comparison with the yarn fineness of the second yarn is ≥1150
dtex; and
wherein the elongation at break of the first yarn lies in a range
of 1 %-8% and the elongation at break of the second yarn lies in
a range of 9%-30%;
wherein an extreme asymmetry of the yarn fineness of the first
yarn in comparison with the yarn fineness of the second yarn
facilitates high speed resistance of the tire where the first yarn
operates predominantly for greater elongations.

Independent claim 22 also recites a hybrid cord incorporated in a belt
bandage of a pneumatic vehicle tire similar to claim 12 while independent
claim 31 recites a more specific embodiment of the hybrid cord. All claims
require a hybrid cord comprising first and second yarns where the yarn
fineness of the first yarn in comparison with the yarn fineness of the second
yarn is at least ≥1150 dtex. See claim 12 (reciting a fineness difference
Appeal 2020-005506
Application 15/503,741

3

≥1150 dtex), claim 22 (reciting a fineness difference ≥1400 dtex), and claim
31 (reciting hybrid cords comprising yarns meeting the fineness differences
recited in claims 12 and 22).
Appellant requests review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–
31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nakayasu (US
5,558,144, issued September 24, 1996), Fritsch (US 6,601,378 B1, issued
August 5, 2003), and Shepherd (US 4,155,394, issued May 22, 1979).
Appeal Br. 4; Final Act. 2.

OPINION
Claim 12, 3
After review of the respective positions that Appellant and the
Examiner present, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims
12–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Appellant provide in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs. We add the following for emphasis.
Independent claim 12 recites a hybrid cord incorporated in a belt
bandage of a pneumatic vehicle tire, wherein the hybrid cord comprises at
least a first yarn and a second yarn having a second end. Claim 12 further
recites that the yarn fineness of the first yarn in comparison with the yarn
fineness of the second yarn is ≥1150 dtex.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a complete

2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 12 with the understanding
that the discussion applies equally to the remaining independent and
dependent claims.
3 A discussion of the Shepherd reference is unnecessary for disposition of
this Appeal. The Examiner relies on Shepherd to address additional
limitations other that the yarn fineness. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-005506
Application 15/503,741

4

statement of the rejection of claim 12. Final Act. 2–3.
Briefly, the Examiner finds Nakayasu discloses a hybrid tire cord
comprising at least one high modulus yarn (claimed first yarn) and at least
one low modulus yarn (claimed second yarn), wherein Nakayasu
exemplifies the yarn fineness of the first yarn in comparison with the yarn
fineness of the second yarn is 580 denier (645 dtex). Final Act. 2–3;
Nakayasu Figure 2, col. 3, ll. 45–55. The Examiner finds Nakayasu does not
teach the claimed range for the fineness difference of ≥1150 dtex. Final Act.
3. The Examiner finds Fritsch teaches it is known for hybrid cord
constructions to comprise yarns having a wide range of fineness values.
Final Act. 3; Fritsch col. 5, ll. 64–67 (“yarn deniers of about 500 to about
5000”). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakayasu’s cord by using low modulus
and high modulus yarns having the finesses taught by Fritsch and arrive at
the claimed fineness difference (absolute difference) in the absence of
unexpected results. Final Act. 3.
In other words, the Examiner finds the difference between the
fineness of the first and second yarns in a hybrid cord is a result effective
variable based on the combined teachings of Nakayasu and Fritsch and that
one skilled in the art could optimize this variable through routine
experimentation to arrive at the claimed hybrid cord.
Appellant argues the Examiner has not considered the claimed
invention as a whole but instead focuses on Nakayasu’s ratio between a low
modulus yarn and a high modulus yarn suggesting that the claims are merely
directed to such a “quantitative relationship.” Appeal Br. 4–5. Specifically,
Appellant contends that the Examiner relies on this ratio to meet claim 12’s
Appeal 2020-005506
Application 15/503,741

5

limitation of “the yarn fineness of the first yarn in comparison with the yarn
fineness of the second yarn is ≥ 1150 dtex.” Id. at 5. Appellant asserts that
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case because the Examiner
has not explained adequately how one skilled in the art would arrive at the
noted claim limitation from Nakayasu’s ratio. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3.
Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[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.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), quoted with
approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The Examiner reasons one skilled in the art would arrive at the
claimed fineness range from the combined teachings of Nakayasu and
Fritsch because (1) a fair reading of Nakayasu suggests the general
manufacture of hybrid cords having a significantly larger mass of a high
modulus material, as compared to a low modulus material, without
limitation in regards to the individual thickness/yarn fineness values of
respective materials and (2) Fritsch teaches a broad range of yarn fineness
values conventionally used in tire reinforcing cords. Ans. 5. However, the
Examiner directs us to no portion of Nakayasu’s disclosure in support of
reasoning (1). With respect to reasoning (2), the Examiner does not explain
why the fact that Fritsch teaches conventional fineness values for the yarns
of a hybrid cord would lead one skilled in the art to a hybrid cord having a
Appeal 2020-005506
Application 15/503,741

6

high modulus yarn and a low modulus yarn where the difference between
the fineness values of the high modulus yarn and the low modulus yarn
would be ≥ 1150 dtex. Moreover, the Examiner fails to direct us to any
portion of either reference that suggests or recognizes the fineness difference
is a result effective variable that achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie,
559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977) (a particular parameter must first be recognized
as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized
result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said
variable might be characterized as routine experimentation). The Examiner
has not provided an adequate technical explanation why one skilled in the art
would have arrived at the range of fineness difference values for the claimed
hybrid cord from the teachings of the cited art. Thus, the Examiner’s
reasoning for combining the teachings of the cited art is no more than
speculation that falls short of the requisite “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejection of
claims 12–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Appellant presents
and we give above.

Appeal 2020-005506
Application 15/503,741

7

DECISION SUMMARY

In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–31 103 Nakayasu, Fritsch, Shepherd 12–31

REVERSED