Ex Parte Stuckey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

13034109 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/034,109 02/24/2011
48985 7590 11/01/2016
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC
10 East Firestone Blvd.
AKRON, OH 44317
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jon I. Stuckey
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.
P07011US2A 1152
EXAMINER
MAKI, STEVEN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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):
iplawpat@bfusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JON I. STUCKEY
Appeal2015-002681
Application 13/034,109
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JULIA HEANEY Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
December 5, 2013 decision finally rejecting claims 1-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and
18-23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC
(Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal2015-002681
Application 13/034,109
CLAHvIED SUBJECT ivIATTER
Appellant's invention is directed to a tire having a tread divided into
at least three circumferential ribs by grooves which run circumferentially
around the tire (claim 1 ). Each rib is further divided into "lugs," which are
separated from each other by lateral grooves (Spec. 4, i-f 27). This general
design may be seen in the following annotated version of FIG. 5 from the
application on appeal:
520c 520d
Fig. 5
2
Appeal2015-002681
Application 13/034,109
Annotated FIG. 5 shows a top view of a portion of a tread of a tire according
to the invention.
The claimed invention requires that there be different numbers of lugs
in at least two of the ribs, and that the circumferential shear stiffness of the
ribs be within 5 percent of each other. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
invention and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief (key claim limitation in italics):
1. A tire having a circumferential tread, the tire comprising:
a plurality of circumferential grooves disposed in the
circumferential tread, including at least a first circumferential
groove and a second circumferential groove;
a plurality of circumferential ribs at least partially defined by
the plurality of circumferential grooves, the plurality of
circumferential ribs including at least a first circumferential rib, a
second circumferential rib, and a third circumferential rib;
a first plurality of lugs formed in the first circumferential rib;
a second plurality of lugs formed in the second
circumferential rib, wherein a total number of lugs in the second
plurality of lugs is different from a total number of lugs in the first
plurality of lugs; and
a third plurality of lugs formed in the third circumferential rib,
wherein the first circumferential rib has a first circumferential
shear stiffness, the second circumferential rib has a second
circumferential shear stiffness that is within 5-percent of the first
circumferential shear stiffness, and the third circumferential rib has
a third circumferential shear stiffness that is within 5-percent of the
first circumferential shear stiffness and within 5-percent of the
second circumferential shear stiffness.
3
Appeal2015-002681
Application 13/034,109
REJECTION
Claims 1-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18-23 (all of the claims in appeal)
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP '1102 in
view of JP '1303 or Kousaie,4 and optionally further in view of at least one
of Mancosu,5 EP '557,6 and JP '040.7
DISCUSSION
Appellant does not offer separate arguments in support of the
patentability of any of the claims (see, e.g. Appeal Br. 22-24).8
Accordingly, we focus our discussion on the rejection of claim 1.
The Examiner finds that JP '110 discloses each element of the
claimed invention, except that it does not recite that the circumferential
shear stiffness of the ribs are within 5% of the other ribs, as set forth in the
final paragraph of claim 1 (Final Act. 3). The Examiner further finds, inter
alia, that JP '130 and Kousaie each teach that in an asymmetrical tread
pattern, the circumferential shear stiffness of the various ribs "should be
about equal" (JP '130), or the differences between the ribs "should be
minimized (Kousaie) to improve steering stability (JP '130) or to obtain
balanced wet, dry, and snow performance (Kousaie) (Final Act. 4).
2 Morikawa et al., JP 63-159110, published July 2, 1988.
3 Naoki, JP 2009-035130(A) published February 19, 2009.
4 Kousaie et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,609,548 B2, issued August 26, 2003.
5 Mancosu et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,697,772 B2, issued February 24, 2004.
6 Sawano, EP 0 367 557 A2, published May 9, 1990.
7 Takeshi, JP 2006-143040, published June 8, 2006.
8 Appellant notes that claims 9, 10, 18, 22, and 23 recite differing amounts
of circumferential shear stiffness differential, but does not offer separate
arguments with regard to these amounts (Appeal Br. 22-24).
4
Appeal2015-002681
Application 13/034,109
Therefore, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
ensure that the ribs in the JP '110 tire have similar circumferential shear
stiffnesses (id.). 9
We have reviewed the arguments and evidence set forth by Appellant
in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, but are not persuaded that Appellant
has demonstrated reversible error in the rejection, essentially for the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the
following for emphasis.
Appellant contends the proposed combination of JP '110 with JP '130
or Kousaie would not have had a reasonable expectation of success and,
therefore, would not have rendered the claimed invention obvious (see, e.g.
Appeal Br. 13). In particular, Appellant argues that although the secondary
references do teach that minimizing the difference in circumferential shear
stiffness between ribs is desirable (Appeal Br. 14), none of the references
"provide methods for balancing the stiffness of three ribs having different
numbers of lugs" (id.).
The Examiner finds that Kousaie explicitly teaches a tire with
circumferential ribs having differing amounts of lugs and having
substantially similar circumferential stiffnesses (Ans. 23-24). The Examiner
finds that the tire depicted in Kousaie's FIG. 2 shows ribs having differing
amounts of lugs (Ans. 23). Specifically, the Examiner finds that the number
of lugs (blocks) in rib R5 is greater than the number of lugs (blocks) in either
rib R2 or RI, and the number of lugs in rib R4 is greater than the number of
9 The Examiner makes additional findings based on Mancosu, JP '040, and
EP '557 to bolster the basic findings from JP '130 and Kousaie (Final Act.
4--5).
5
Appeal2015-002681
Application 13/034,109
blocks in either rib R2 or rib RI (id.). This is shown in the following
annotated version of Kousaie's FIG. 2
r·---