Ex Parte Neubauer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2014

12201090 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT ANTHONY NEUBAUER, KEITH CARL TRARES,
JOSEPH KEVIN HUBBELL, and PING ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2013-000719
Application 12/201,0901
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before SALLY G. LANE, DEBORAH KATZ, and
KIMBERLY J. McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 3–12, 14, 15, 21–26. Claims 1, 2, 13, and 16–20 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to tires and tire carcasses. Claim 7 is
illustrative and set forth below.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company of Akron, Ohio. Appeal Br. 1.

Appeal 2013-000719
Application 12/201,090

2

7. A tire carcass comprising:

a first radial ply;

a first sidewall;

a second sidewall;

a carcass crown portion comprising a material, the
carcass crown portion having a first edge and a second
edge;

a non-continuous second radial ply, the second
radial ply having a right side extending from
approximately the first edge of the carcass crown portion,
and extending at least to the first bead core and a left side
extending from approximately the second edge of the
carcass crown portion, and extending at least to the
second bead core,
wherein the right side of the second radial ply has
a cord density different than the second side of the
second radial ply; and

a non-continuous third radial ply, the third radial
ply having a right side extending from approximately the
first edge of the carcass crown portion, and extending at
least to the first bead core, and a left side extending from
approximately the second edge of the carcass crown
portion, and extending at least to the second bead core,
the third radial ply overlaying the second radial ply;

wherein the material in the crown portion a lower
material strength than at least one of the sidewalls,
wherein the material strength is determined by at least
one of the following group comprising: Shore A
hardness, compounding, cord diameter, tensile strength,
and twists per inch.
Claim App’x (limitations at dispute italicized and indented).
Appeal 2013-000719
Application 12/201,090

3
The Examiner rejected Claims 3–12, 14, 15 and 21–26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 5,273,094 (“Chavet”). Examiner’s
Answer 3, Appeal Br. 4.

DISCUSSION
Rejection of Claims 3–12, 14, 15, and 21–26 2under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chavet

The Examiner found that Chavet discloses a tire construction
including a first radial carcass ply, and a second and third non-continuous
carcass ply. Final Office Action 2 (citing Chavet Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 15+).
The Examiner found that Figure 1 of Chavet discloses a first continuous
radial carcass ply (carcass layer section 10 in Figure 1), second non-
continuous ply layer (the combination of carcass layer sections 8 and 9 in
Figure 1 or the combination of carcass layer sections 38 and 39 in Figure 2)
and a third non-continuous ply layer (the combination of carcass layer
sections 42 and 43 in Fig. 2). Examiner’s Answer 3, 6; Chavet Figs. 1 & 2.
The Examiner further found that Chavet teaches that the respective
carcass layer sections, or carcass plies, can be formed with the same or
different cord packing densities. Final Office Action 2, Examiner’s Answer
6–7; see also Chavet, col. 2, ll. 24–31 (“with the carcass layer sections . . . ,
combinations of the same or different materials, the same or different cord
constructions, the same or different cord packing densities . . . may be
employed”). The Examiner found that carcass layer section 8 can have a

2 The Appellants have not argued the patentability of claims 3–12, 14, 15
and 21–26 separately and therefore the claims stand or fall together. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2013-000719
Application 12/201,090

4
different packing density than carcass layer section 9 and carcass layer
section 38 can have a different packing density than carcass layer section 39.
Examiner Answer 7; Chavet col. 2, ll. 24–31. Similarly, the Examiner found
that Chavet teaches that carcass layer section 42 in Figure 2 may comprise
different cords, different materials, different cord constructions, and
different packing densities as compared to carcass layer section 43.
Examiner’s Answer 7; Chavet, col. 5, ll. 62–65.
The Examiner concluded that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to vary the cord densities (suggested in col. 5, lines
62+) in respective sides of the second, non-continuous ply. Final Office
Action 2–3.
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred because any suggestion in
Chavet of a single, non-continuous ply having different cord densities
ignores Chavet’s requirement that tires be “uniform” or “symmetric.”
Appeal Br. 5–8. Appellants argue that to harmonize Chavet’s requirement
of tire uniformity with its disclosure of different cord densities, Chavet
should be interpreted to mean that cord densities are varied between
different radial layers but not between opposing sides of the same radial
layer.
Appellants’ arguments have been carefully considered, but are not
found to be convincing as the evidence of record is in contrast to this
argument.
Chavet expressly discloses asymmetric, or non-uniform, tire designs
and thus does not require tire uniformity. Fig. 3; col. 2, ll. 1–3; col., 3,
ll. 35–37, 42–46, 49–55; col. 5, l. 66–67; col. 6, ll. 11–14.
Appeal 2013-000719
Application 12/201,090

5
In the Reply Brief, Appellants admit that Figure 3 of Chavet discloses
asymmetric tires, but argues that the asymmetry is achieved by varying the
cord length of carcass layers 53 and 54, and not by varying cord density as
required by the claims. (Reply Br. 6–7). This does not convince us the
Examiner erred. Even if asymmetry can be achieved by varying cord length,
Chavet does not exclude the longer and shorter cords 53 and 54 from having
different densities. Rather, Chavet expressly states that both carcass layers
53 and 54 may be comprised of the same or different packing densities.
Chavet, col. 6, ll. 11–14 (“Both carcass layer sections 53 and 54 may be
comprised of the same or different materials, the same or different cord
constructions and/or the same or different packing densities . . . .”)(emphasis
added).
Considering the evidence of record and arguments of the Appellants,
we find the cited art suggests the disputed claim language and see no error in
the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 3–12, 14, 15 and 21–26.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3–12,
14, 15 and 21–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chavet.
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
llw