Ex Parte Deal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2018

13878925 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/878,925 04/26/2013
35161 7590 07/24/2018
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1825 Eye St., NW
Suite 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michel Deal
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.
338180-00596 5917
EXAMINER
FISCHER, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHEL DEAL 1
Appeal2017-002793
Application 13/878,925
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 11-18. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to passenger vehicle tires with a
radical carcass. E.g., Spec. ,r 1; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from
the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
1 According to the Appellant, the real parties in interest are Compagnie
Generale des Etablissements Michelin and Michelin Recherche et Technique
S.A. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-002793
Application 13/878,925
1. A passenger vehicle tire, compnsmg a crown, the crown
comprising a crown reinforcement of which consists of:
• a radial carcass reinforcement consisting of a single layer of
reinforcers,
• a working reinforcement consisting of a single layer of
reinforcers inclined by an angle "a" with respect to the
circumferential direction (DC) of the tire, the angle a being
between 4 and 7 degrees,
• a flat circumferential polymer reinforcer positioned in a
central portion of the crown,
wherein the flat circumferential polymer reinforcer is
positioned between the working reinforcement and the tread,
and is situated radially on the outside of the working
reinforcement,
wherein the flat circumferential polymer reinforcer consists of a
single layer, the single layer is a multiaxially drawn
thermoplastic polymer film, and
wherein the width of the flat circumferential reinforcer is at
least equal to half the width of the tire.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-17 over Cooper (GB 720,150, published
Dec. 15, 1954), optionally in view of GB 1340687 ("GB '687," published
Dec. 12, 1973) and/or Tsou (US 6,966,999 B2, issued Nov. 22, 2005);
2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 12-18 over Chamberlin (US 4,011,899,
issued Mar. 15, 1977) and Cooper, optionally in view of GB '687 and/or
Tsou;
3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, and 11-17 over Takemura (US 3,851,692,
issued Dec. 3, 1974), Allard (US 4,073,330, issued Feb. 14, 1978), and
Cooper, optionally in view of GB '687 and/or Tsou;
2
Appeal2017-002793
Application 13/878,925
ANALYSIS
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Non-Final Action dated March 28, 2016 ("Act."), and in the Examiner's
Answer. See generally Act. 2-10; Ans. 2--4.
Rejection 1
The Appellant argues the claims subject to Rejection 1 as a group.
We select claim 1 as representative, and the remaining claims subject to
Rejection 1 will stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Cooper teaches a tire comprising a radial
carcass structure, a working reinforcement of circumferential extending ply
of steel cords disposed at an angle between O and 30 degrees with respect to
the median plane of the tire (i.e., the circumferential direction), and a flat
polymer reinforcer. Act. 2-3. The Examiner states: "It is emphasized that
Cooper is specifically directed to tire constructions including a single ply of
steel cords or a plurality of plies[,] and the claimed inclination angles are
fully encompassed by the range disclosed by Cooper." Id. With respect to
the finding concerning the single ply, the Examiner relies on the following
disclosure from Cooper:
According to the invention a pneumatic tyre cover has a
circumferentially extending tread reinforcement incorporated in
the cover and located between the carcass and the running
surface of the tread which comprises at least one
circumferentially extending ply of steel cords coated with a
resilient material, the cords being mutually parallel and
disposed at from 0° to 30° to the median plane ....
3
Appeal2017-002793
Application 13/878,925
Cooper at 1:53-70 (emphasis added).
With respect to the width of the flat polymer reinforcer, the Examiner
finds that "said layer is depicted [in Cooper] as having an extent that is
approximately equal to an axially extent of the working reinforcement. It is
extremely well known and conventional that working reinforcement layers
have an axial extent greater than half of the tire width." Act. 3. The
Examiner further finds that the "polymer reinforcer has a width that is
approximately equal to that of the working reinforcement layer and such
layers almost always have an axial width that is at least equal to 0.50 times
the tread width." Id.
With respect to the requirement that the polymer reinforcer "is a
multiaxially drawn thermoplastic polymer film," the Examiner finds that "it
is extremely well known and conventional to stretch or draw thermoplastic
films in order to improve, among other things, mechanical properties," as
also evidenced by both GB '687 and Tsou. Id. at 3--4.
In view of those and other findings, the Examiner determines that the
subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious.
The Appellant's sole argument on appeal is that Cooper does not
teach or suggest a working reinforcement consisting of a single layer of
reinforcers, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6-8. In particular, the
Appellant argues that the line of Cooper relied on by the Examiner ( and
block quoted above) implies at least one ply of steel cords that is coated with
a resilient material, but the fact that two examples and the Figure of Cooper
use two layers of steel cords shows that Cooper suggests at least two layers
of steel cords, with at least one of them being coated with a resilient
material. Id.
4
Appeal2017-002793
Application 13/878,925
We determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's interpretation of Cooper. Cooper explicitly states that its tire
possesses "at least one circumferentially extending ply of steel cords coated
with a resilient material." Cooper at 1 :58-60. Consistent with the
Examiner's interpretation, the plain language of Cooper suggests an
embodiment with a single ply ("at least one") of steel cords coated with a
resilient material, and the Appellant does not identify a disclosure in Cooper
persuasively suggesting that any additional plies of steel cords are required.
The fact that Cooper permits more than one ply by use of the words "at
least" does not suggest that it requires more than one ply.
Additionally, claim 1 of Cooper recites "at least one circumferentially
extending ply made of steel cords coated with a resilient material." Cooper
at 2:94--95. Claim 2 of Cooper recites, "two circumferentially extending
plies of steel cords coated with a resilient material." Id. at 2:106--08; see
also id. at 4:66-70 ("In a preferred type of construction the tread
reinforcement layer comprises two circumferentially extending adjacent
layers of steel cord ply coated with resilient material .... "). Thus, when
Cooper intended to require or suggest two layers, it did so clearly. Cooper's
express disclosure of "at least one circumferentially extending ply of steel
cords coated with a resilient material" is consistent with the Examiner's
finding that Cooper teaches or suggests a single layer, particularly in
juxtaposition with other disclosures of Cooper that plainly indicate two
layers.
The Appellant's reliance on two working examples and Cooper's
Figure is not persuasive because "a reference is not limited to the disclosure
of specific working examples." See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649,651 (CCPA
5
Appeal2017-002793
Application 13/878,925
1972). It is clear from Cooper that both examples relied on by the Appellant
are sample embodiments of Cooper with no suggestion that they are limiting
embodiments or otherwise describe requirements of Cooper. E.g., Cooper at
3:60-62 ("The manufacture of a tyre in accordance with one embodiment of
the invention will now be described." (emphasis added)), 3:99-100 ("In an
alternative construction .... ").
On the record before us, we are not persuaded of reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Rejection 2
Rejection 2 is not separately argued. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 12-18 as set forth in Rejection 2 for
reasons stated above.
Rejection 3
In Rejection 3, the Examiner relies on Takemura as teaching or
suggesting a single working reinforcement layer. Act. 7. The Examiner
relies on Cooper only for the disclosure of a flat circumferential polymer
reinforcer. Id. at 7-8.
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant incorrectly asserts that, in
Rejection 3, "[t]he Office relies on the same portions of Cooper to reject the
above-noted portions of independent claim 1" as argued with respect to
Rejection 1. App. Br. 8. In the Answer, the Examiner notes that the
"Appellant has not provided any arguments regarding ... Takemura."
Ans. 4. In the Reply Brief, the Appellant does not address the Examiner's
reliance on Takemura as teaching or suggesting a single reinforcement layer.
Reply Br. 2.
6
Appeal2017-002793
Application 13/878,925
Because the Appellant has not addressed the Examiner's rationale or
otherwise asserted error in it, we summarily affirm the rejection of the
claims subject to Rejection 3.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 11-
18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7