11126505 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

Ex Parte Wall et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 23, 2010

11126505 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

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.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/126,505 05/11/2005 Jennifer Elizabeth Fitzharris Wall 2003197P01 4234 27280 7590 09/24/2010 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 823 1144 EAST MARKET STREET AKRON, OH 44316-0001 EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1791 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JENNIFER ELIZABETH FITZHARRIS WALL, BINA PATEL BOTTS, GEORGE FRANK BALOGH, LEONARD JAMES REITER, AND MICHAEL JULIAN CRAWFORD ____________ Appeal 2009-015297 Application 11/126/505 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-015297 Application 11/126,505 2 This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 25, 28, 36, and 38- 41. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. Claim 25 is illustrative: 25. A pneumatic rubber tire having a built-in non-black colored puncture sealing layer, wherein said puncture sealing layer contains an at least partially organoperoxide-depolymerized butyl rubber-based sealant layer positioned between a halobutyl rubber tire innerliner and a conjugated diene-based tire carcass, and wherein said puncture sealing layer is comprised of, based upon parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of said partially depolymerized butyl rubber: (A) a partially organoperoxide-deploymerized butyl rubber as a copolymer of isobutylene and isoprene, wherein said butyl rubber, prior to such depolymerization, is comprised of about 0.5 to about 5 percent units derived from isoprene, and correspondingly from about 95 to about 99.5 weight percent units derived from isobutylene; (B) particulate reinforcing filler comprised of a finite amount of carbon black up to about 5 phr of carbon black so long as the said sealant layer is of a color other than black, and (1) about 20 to about 50 phr of precipitated silica having a BET surface area in a range of from about 50 to about 70 m2/g, or (2) about 12 to about 30 phr of precipitated silica having a BET surface area in a range of from about 110 to about 200 m2/g, or (3) about 15 to about 30 phr of precipitated silica having a BET surface area in a range of from about 50 to about 70 m2/g and about 5 to about 20 phr of clay, or (4) about 5 to about 25 phr of precipitated silica having a BET surface area in a range of from about 110 to about 200 m2/g and about 5 to about 20 phr of clay, or Appeal 2009-015297 Application 11/126,505 3 (5) about 15 to about 30 phr of precipitated silica having a BET surface area in a range of from about 50 to about 70 m2/g and about 5 to about 20 phr of calcium carbonate, or (6) about 5 to about 25 phr of precipitated silica having a BET surface area in a range of from about 110 to about 200 m2/g and about 5 to about 20 phr of calcium carbonate, or (7) about 15 to about 30 phr of precipitated silica having a BET surface area in a range of from about 50 to about 70 m2/g, about 5 to about 15 phr of clay and about 5 to about 15 phr of calcium carbonate, or (8) about 5 to about 25 phr of precipitated silica having a BET surface area in a range of from about 110 to about 200 m2/g, about 5 to about 15 phr of clay and about 5 to about 15 phr of calcium carbonate; (C) from zero to 6 phr of short organic fibers; (D) a colorant of other than a black color wherein said colorant is selected from at least one of organic pigments, inorganic pigments and dyes; and (E) from zero to about 20 phr of rubber processing oil, wherein said silica, and optionally said clay and calcium carbonate, is treated either in situ within the rubber composition prior to addition of the organoperoxide or pre-treated prior to mixing with the rubber composition with a polyethylene glycol having a weight average molecular weight in a range of from about 2,000 to about 15,000. The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of obviousness: Kawaguchi US 4,966,213 Oct. 30, 1990 Josef WO 99/48813 Sep. 30, 1999 Saito US 2003/0155058 A1 Aug. 21, 2003 Serra US 2005/0034799 A1 Feb. 17, 2005 Comment [CQT1]: same as in companion case Appeal 2009-015297 Application 11/126,505 4 The instant application is related to copending application, U.S. Serial No. 10/917,620. The copending application is also before us on appeal (Appeal No. 2010-003337). The claimed subject matter in the two applications is essentially the same, a difference being the present claims on appeal call for carbon black, as well as silica, in the puncture sealing layer. Appealed claims 25, 28, 36, and 38-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Serra in view of Kawaguchi, Saito, and Josef. Appellants do not present separate arguments for any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 25. We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for patentability, which are essentially the same as those set forth in the copending appeal, focusing upon the asserted nonobviousness of treating precipitated silica with polyethylene glycol. Serra teaches that the puncture sealing layer may comprise carbon black and precipitated silica as a filler, and Appellants do not contest the Examiner's legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include both carbon black and precipitated silica as filler in the puncture sealing layer. As for treating the silica with polyethylene glycol, we concur with the Examiner that Josef evidences the obviousness of doing so. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons set forth in the Answer and those articulated in our decision in the related appeal, which we decide concurrently herewith. As in the related appeal, Appeal 2009-015297 Application 11/126,505 5 Appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results. In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims 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)(1)(v). AFFIRMED cam THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 823 1144 EAST MARKET STREET AKRON OH 44316-0001