Ex Parte Du et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2014

12212682 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MINGLIANG DU, OSAMA HAMZEH, DING XU,
RONALD WILLIS WHITE, MAHESH KAVATURU,
NIZAR TOUMNI, and OLIVIER DE BARSY

____________

Appeal 2012-003933
Application 12/212,682
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003933
Application 12/212,682

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-3 and 6-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants request review of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims
1-3 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Galante (US 4,941,523), Ian (JP 8-40025) and/or Gojo (JP 5-
77616).1 (App. Br. 3).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A pneumatic tire comprising:
a tread;
two inextensible annular beads;
a carcass ply having two turnup end portions, each wrapped
around one of the annular beads; and
an annular cap structure encompassing one of the turnup end
portions, the cap structure having a U-shaped cross-section
for surrounding the turnup end portion, the cap structure
being constructed of reinforced fabric with fibers oriented in
the range from -45o to +45o with respect to a radial direction
of the pneumatic tire;
nylon fabric flippers for absorbing strain between the
annular beads and the carcass ply; and
steel cord chippers for absorbing strain between the turnup
ends and a wheel rim on which the pneumatic tire is
mounted.
OPINION
The dispositive issue is: Did the Examiner err in determining that the
combined teachings of Galante and either Ian or Gojo would have led a

1 We refer to the English language translations of JP 8-40025 and JP 5-
77616 that are contained in the electronic working file.
Appeal 2012-003933
Application 12/212,682

3
person of ordinary skill in the art to form a pneumatic tire comprising an
oriented short fiber reinforcement cap layer as required by the subject
matter of claim 1?2
After review of the Examiner’s rejection3 and Appellants’
arguments, we sustain the rejections for the reasons presented by the
Examiner. We add the following.
Appellants argue the Examiner has relied on hindsight as the
motivation for adding a cap layer to Galante’s pneumatic tire. (App. Br. 8).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. The Examiner found
Galante describes a tire construction that meets the claimed invention
except for that carcass turnup ends do not contain fiber reinforced cap
layer. (Ans. 4). The Examiner found Ian and Gojo describe a reinforced
cap layer (reinforced fabric) comprising a plurality of spaced apart fibers
or cords. (Ans. 4-5; Ian ¶¶ 12, 18, and 19; Gojo ¶¶ 10 and 11). The
Examiner found Ian describes fibers desirably have an inclination between
25o and 35o with respect to the radial direction which falls within the
claimed range. (Ans. 5; Ian ¶ 30). The purpose of Ian and Gojo was to
form a radial-ply tire for heavy loading which having improved endurance
of a bead part. (Ian ¶ 8; Gojo ¶ 4). The Examiner found it would have
obvious to form a tire, such as described by Galante, with improve bead
durability by including a fiber reinforced cap layer with fibers having an
inclination between 25o and 35o. (Ans. 5).

2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Appellants have limited
their arguments to claim 1 and have not presented substantive arguments
addressing the subject matter of independent claims 2-3 and 6-8.
3 The Examiner’s complete statement of rejection appears on pages 4-6 of
the Answer.
Appeal 2012-003933
Application 12/212,682

4
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in this
art routinely following the combined teachings of Galante, and either Ian
or Gojo as cited by the Examiner would have reasonably arrived at the
claimed having improve bead durability by including a fiber reinforced cap
layer as required by the subject matter of claim 1 without resort to
Appellants’ Specification. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416-419 (2007).
Appellants argue the result of adding the unreinforced cap layer of
Ian or Gojo to the tire of Galante and adding short fiber reinforcement to
that added cap layer oriented as recited in claim 1, cannot be predicted, and
is, therefore, unpredictable and nonobvious. (App. Br. 6-9).
We do not agree. “Obviousness does not require absolute
predictability of success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation
of success.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing
In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). A person of
ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that the addition of the cap
layer as suggested by the Examiner would have resulted in a radial-ply tire
for heavy loading which having improved endurance of the bead part. The
evidence of a suggestion, teaching or motivation to combine may flow
from the references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved. See Pro-Mold &
Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir.
1996). Appellants have not refuted the tire construction of Ian and Gojo
provides improved endurance of the bead part. As such, Appellants have
not addressed the Examiner reasons for combining the teachings of Galante
with either Ian or Gojo.
Appeal 2012-003933
Application 12/212,682

5
For the foregoing reasons and those presented in the Answer, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-8 is affirmed.

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

lp