11592893 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2012)

Ex Parte Ueyoko et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 12, 2012

11592893 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _________________ Ex parte KIYOSHI UEYOKO, ROBERT JOHN BOEHLEFELD, MAURE ELLEN KNAVISH, and LARRY LEE MERSHON _________________ Appeal 2011-006116 Application 11/592,893 Technology Center 1700 _________________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. KATZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006116 Application 11/592,893 2 The rejection of claims 1 and 3-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 was brought by the named inventors and the real party-in-interest, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. (App. Br. 3.) Claims 2 and 18 were previously cancelled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Examiner maintained the following rejections:  Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Iwata1, Ueyoko2, and Reuter3;  Claims 4, 8, 9, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Iwata, Ueyoko, Reuter, and Fritsch4; and  Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Iwata, Ueyoko, Reuter, Fritsch, and Suzuki5. Appellants do not argue for the separate patentability of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Iwata, Ueyoko, and Reuter. We focus on claim 1 in our review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants’ claim 1 recites: A pneumatic tire having a carcass and a belt reinforcing structure, the belt reinforcing structure comprising: a composite belt structure of cord reinforced layers including a radially inner layer of cord having an angular orientation of 5 degrees or less with the circumferential direction, and a radially outer layer of cord having an angular orientation of 5 degrees or less with the circumferential 1 U.S. Patent No. 4,702,293, issued October 27, 1987. 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,116,311, issued September 12, 2000. 3 U.S. Patent No. 6,799,618 B2, issued October 5, 2004. 4 U.S. Patent No. 6,601,378 B1, issued August 5, 2003. 5 U.S. Patent No. 4,161,203, issued July 17, 1979. App App (App struc eal 2011-0 lication 11 di th of ce po ra ra str ha ci be . Br. 8, Cl Figure 2 ture and is 06116 /592,893 rection, w an the radi and a cords, the nterplane ints at eac where dially inne dially inne ucture, and fu ving an an rcumferen lt reinforc aims App of Appell reproduc herein the ally inner zigzag bel cords inc of the tire h lateral e in the zigz r layer and r layer is w rther com gular orie tial directi ing structu ’x.) ant’s speci ed below. 3 radially ou layer, t reinforci lined at 5 t extending dge, ag belt str the radia ider than prising a s ntation of on located re. fication de ter layer h ng structur o 30 degre in alternat ucture is a lly outer la said zigza econd rad 5 degrees radially in picts a zig as a width e forming es relative ion to turn rranged be yer, and w g belt rein ially inner or less wit wards of -zag reinf greater two layer to the around tween the herein the forcing layer h the said zigzag orcing s App App Figu more but i and 4 claim Figu layer 66. are w 6 App 46, w 46 is Acco rubb struc 7 We claim spira woun limit eal 2011-0 lication 11 re 2 depict cords 436 nclined to 5, formin Figure 4 ed tire an re 4 depict structure (Spec. ¶ [0 ider than ellants’ sp hile the ru apparent rdingly, w erized strip ture on wh note that t 1 in the S lly wound d layers i ations of c 06116 /592,893 s the zig-z , which ar some exte g a zig-zag of Appell d is reprod s two inne 62, and tw 021].) As the inner s ecificatio bberized in Figure 2 e assume , which h ich the co hough Ap ummary o layers are n those fig laim 1. ag structu e wound in nt so that t path. (Sp ants’ speci uced belo r spirally w o radially depicted, pirally wo n indicates strip is ele , but elem that eleme as no num rds are wo pellants re f Claimed depicted a ures (see, 4 re 50 with a general hey exten ec. ¶ [001 fication de w. ound lay outer spira the outer s und layers that the o ment 43. ent 43 see nt 43 indi ber in the und. ference Fi Subject M s being w e.g., Spec. a rubberiz ly circum d between 5].) picts an e ers 60 and lly wound pirally wo 60 and 6 ne or more (Spec. ¶ [0 ms to indi cates chord figure, but gures 5 an atter (Ap ider than t ¶ [0025]) ed strip of ferential d the lateral mbodimen 61, an inn belt layer und layer 1.7 (Id.) cords are 015].) No cate chord s and not is likely t d 6 as sup p. Br. 3), t he outer sp , in contra one or irection, edges 44 t of the er zigzag s 64 and s 64 and 6 element element structures the he port for he inner irally st to the 6 . App App (Iwa repro Figu belt locat 2, ll. eal 2011-0 lication 11 Iwata tea ta, col. 1, l duced bel re 1 depict B. Belt B  belt l paral (Iwat  belt l 2a an respe Ueyoko ed radially 48-52 and 06116 /592,893 ches a pn . 62, throu ow. s a section includes tw a laye ayer,” whi lel to the e a, col. 53- a laye ayer,” whi d 2b and i ct to the eq teaches a p outside o col. 3, ll. eumatic tir gh col. 2, al view of o layers: r identifie ch compri quatorial p 58); and r identifie ch compri s “arrange uatorial p neumatic f the band 12-13). T 5 e with mu l. 12; see A a tire with d as layer ses steel c lane of th d as layer 2 ses two co d at an inc lane of the tire with a 9 and carc he breaker ltiple laye ns. 3-4.) a carcass 1and refer ords 1a an e tire,” tha and refer rd plies co lination an tire . . . (i reinforcin ass 6 of th 7 is a dou rs of cords Figure 1 o 3, and a c red to as th d is “subst t is, zero d red to as t ntaining s gle of 20o d., col. 3, g belt (“b e tire (Ue ble-layere and plies f Iwata is omposite e “second antially egrees he “first teel cords with ll. 58-62). reaker”) 7 yoko, col. d cord . App App struc 13 an Figu break avoi skill taugh ends radia reinf with eal 2011-0 lication 11 ture woun d 21-25, c re 2 depict er 7. Uey ding break The Exa in the art t t in Ueyo and, thus, Reuter te lly outwar orcing me respect to 06116 /592,893 d multiple ol. 4, ll. 9 s the zig-z oko teach er edge lo miner con o have sub ko. (Ans. avoided b aches pne dly of a be mber, or “ the mid-c times in a -18; see A ag pattern es that the osening. ( cluded tha stituted “l 8.) The su elt separat umatic tir lt assemb overlay pl ircumferen 6 zig-zag p ns. 4.) Fig of the wo zig-zag pa Ueyoko, c t it would ayer 2” of bstitution ion. (Id.) es with a r ly. (Reute y,” has cor tial plane attern. (U ure 2 is re und tape 1 ttern impr ol. 3, ll. 26 have been Iwata wit would hav einforcing r, col. 1, ll ds “orient of the tire eyoko, col produced 0 forming oves dura -27.) obvious to h a zig-zag e elimina member d . 13-23.) ed at smal ” and has a .3, ll. 12- below. the bility by those of layer as ted cut isposed The l angles width Appeal 2011-006116 Application 11/592,893 7 “about equal to the widest of the belt plies.” (Id.) The Examiner concluded that those of skill in the art would have considered it obvious to use the overlay ply of Reuter as a radially outer layer because it would improve high speed tire durability, as taught in Reuter. (Ans. 4.) In summary, the Examiner concluded that those of skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the pneumatic tire of Iwata by substituting “layer 2” with the zig-zag belt of Ueyoko and by adding the overlay ply of Reuter as the radially outer layer. (Ans. 7-8.) Appellants argue first that Iwata fails to teach the claim limitations of a radially outer layer having cords with an angular orientation of 5 degrees or less and of being wider than the radially inner layer. (App. Br. 5-6.) According to Appellants “layer 2” of Iwata is the radially outer layer and it had cords arranged at an inclination angle of 20o with respect to the equatorial plane. (App. Br. 5-6.) Further according to Appellants, Iwata teaches that this radially outer layer of Iwata is narrower than the radially inner layer (layer 1). (Id.) The Examiner’s conclusion about the modification of the tire of Iwata by adding the overlay ply of Reuter is reasonable. Thus, it is reasonable that those of skill in the art would have considered a pneumatic tire with a radially outer layer having cords of angular orientation of 5 degrees or less and being wider than a radially inner layer to have been obvious. Appellant has not directed us to persuasive evidence that such a modification would have been beyond the skill of those in the art. Appellants also argue that Ueyoko teaches that the zigzag belt must be wider than the low angle spiral band, citing Figure 1 and claim 1 of Ueyoko. (App. Br. 6.) Appellants assert that these disclosures put Ueyoko in direct Appeal 2011-006116 Application 11/592,893 8 conflict with the teaching of Iwata and Appellants’ claims and teach away from them. (App. Br. 6.) We agree with the Examiner that Ueyoko does not limit the zig-zag belt to the arrangement in Figure 1 or the embodiment of claim 1. What a reference teaches or suggests must be examined in the context of the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of a skilled artisan. What a reference teaches a person of ordinary skill is not . . . limited to what a reference specifically ‘talks about’ or what is specifically ‘mentioned’ or ‘written’ in the reference. Under the proper legal standard, a reference will teach away when it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc. 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Appellants do not point to, and we do not find, specific language in Ueyoko that would discourage one from having a zig-zag layer that is narrower than the other layers of the tire. While Ueyoko discloses a width preference of 0.8 to 1.0 times the tread width, which results in a preference for a breaker (zig-zag layer) that is the same or smaller in width than the band 9 (Ueyoke, col. 2, ll. 56-57 and col. 3, ll. 18-19), the preference is merely that, a preference. Preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971). Appellants put forth the same arguments against the rejections of claims 4, 8, 9, 15, and 16 that they asserted against the rejection of claim 1. (App. Br. 7.) As discussed above, these arguments are not persuasive. Though Appellants assert that “there is no teaching in any of the cited references to support the selective combination of elements from the references in the manner proposed as obvious” (App. Br. 7), this statement is Appeal 2011-006116 Application 11/592,893 9 not sufficiently specific to direct us to an error in the Examiner’s prima facie case for obviousness. ORDER Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons given, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Iwata, Ueyoko, and Reuter is sustained; the rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Iwata, Ueyoko, Reuter, and Fritsch is sustained; and the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Iwata, Ueyoko, Reuter, Fritsch, and Suzuki is sustained. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the Examiner. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. AFFIRMED tc 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,usplO.gov APPLlCAnON NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2560 27280 7590 01112/2012 111592,893 11/0312006 Kiyoshi Ueyoko DN2006154 EXAMINER THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 823 FISCHER, JUSTIN R 1144 EAST MARKET STREET ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER AKRON, OH 44316-0001 1747 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 0111212012 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. 04107)