The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2021

2020001984 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2021)

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.
15/678,136 08/16/2017 John David WILSON GYP2016-281 7657
27280 7590 03/31/2021
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
200 Innovation Way
AKRON, OH 44316-0001
EXAMINER
TROCHE, EDGAREDMANUE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2021 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):
kathleen.swisher@goodyear.com
pair_goodyear@firsttofile.com
patents@goodyear.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
Ex parte JOHN DAVID WILSON, MAX HAROLD DIXON,
STEVEN LEWKOWICZ, and TODD ANDREW BACHOCHIN
_______________
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136
Technology Center 1700
_______________
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 11–15 of Application

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Aug. 16, 2017 (“Spec.”)
of Application 15/678,136 (“the ’136 Application”); the Final Office Action
dated Aug. 19, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Aug. 27, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer dated Oct. 22, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appellant did not file a Reply Brief.
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136

2
15/678,136. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 3. Claims 6–10 and 16–20 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter of the ’136 Application relates to a tread for off
road use by tractors and/or vehicles operated in agricultural applications.
Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2. The ’136 Application describes a tire tread that integrally
interconnects lug blocks and a central rib with continuously disposed land
portions. Id. ¶ 3. According to the ’136 Application, the described tire tread
reduces vibration during high-speed travel on paved roads without lowering
traction performance in fields. Id.
Figures 1 and 3 of the ’136 Application are reproduced below to aid in
understanding the invention:
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136

3
Figure 1 is a schematic orthogonal
view of pneumatic tire 10 for use with the
claimed invention. Spec. ¶ 51. Tire (10)
may have outer ground engaging tread
terminating in axially outer lateral edges (13,
14). Id. The tread may include two rows of
inclined shoulder grooves (22, 24) extending
laterally and circumferentially from a
respective lateral tread edge (13, 14) towards
centerplane (CP) of the tread. Id. ¶ 52.
“Shoulder” means the upper portion of
sidewall just below the tread edge. Id. ¶ 43.
The tread may be further divided into
five rows of lugs (30, 40, 50, 60, 70). Id.
¶ 53. First row of lugs (30) may extend from
lateral tread edge (13) axially inward to a row of first sipes (35). Id. “Sipe”
means a groove having a width in the range of 0.2% to 0.8% of the tread
width. Id. ¶ 45. Adjacent to first sipes (35), a second intermediate row of
lugs (40) may be axially located between first row of lugs (30), third center
row of lugs (50), and fourth intermediate row of lugs (60). Id.¶ 53. Second
intermediate row of lugs (40) may be bordered by first sipes (35), one of first
row of lateral grooves (22), a row of second sipes (45), a row of third sipes
(55), and another of first row of lateral grooves (22). Id. A row of third
sipes (55) may be disposed coincidently on the centerplane (CP) of the tire
(10). Id.
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136

4
Third center row of lugs (50) may be axially located between second
intermediate row of lugs (40) and fourth intermediate row of lugs (60). Id.
¶ 54. Third center row of lugs (50) may be disposed symmetrically about
centerplane (CP) and may be bordered by second sipes (45), third sipes (55),
and a row of fourth sipes (65). Id. Each lug (50) may be defined by one of
first row of lateral grooves (22), one of second row of lateral grooves (24),
two adjacent and opposite second sipes (45), and two opposite and adjacent
fourth sipes (65). Id.
Fourth intermediate row of lugs (60) may be axially located between
second intermediate row of lugs (40), third center row of lugs (50), and fifth
shoulder row of lugs (70). Id. ¶ 55. Fourth intermediate row of lugs (60)
may be bordered by third sipes (55), fourth sipes (65), one of second row of
lateral grooves (24), a row of fifth sipes (75), and another one of second row
of lateral grooves (24). Id. Each lug (60) may be defined by one of second
row of lateral grooves (24), another one of second row of lateral grooves
(24), two adjacent and opposite fourth sipes (65), and a fifth sipe (75). Id.
Fifth row of shoulder lugs (70) may extend from the lateral tread edge (14)
axially inward to fifth sipes (75).
Figure 3 is a schematic sectional view of a tread lug in accordance
with the invention. Id. ¶ 50.
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136

5

Figure 3 shows tread lug (100), which may be any tread lug including
those 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 described above. Id. ¶ 57. Tread lug (100) includes
nonplanar contact surface (110) for engaging a terrain for the tire. Id. The
surface, or crown (110), of tread lug (100) may not be symmetrical about
centerline (CL) of the tread lug. As a result, radially outermost point (130),
or tangency point, may not be located on centerline (CL). Id. The
nonsymmetric curvature may thus have varying radii of curvature at
different points on surface (110). Id. Conventional planar lug surface (140)
is shown in phantom. Id. In Figure 3, radially outer most point (130) is a
single point, not every point of the fully defined plane of the conventional
surface (140). Id. To compensate for this asymmetric curvature of tread lug
surface (110), opposite sidewalls (102, 104) of tread lug (100) may have
differing angles of inclination (150, 160). Id. Angle (150) may not equal
angle (160). Id.
Such tread lug surface (110) may relieve pressure at the edges of tread
lug (100) and relocate forces towards the radially thicker portions of the
tread lug surface, such as the points on the tread lug surface (110) radially
above conventional planar lug surface (140). Id. ¶ 58.
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136

6
Claim 1 is representative of the ’136 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. A tread for a tire comprising a plurality of
circumferential rows extending around a radially outer portion
of the tire, each row defining a plurality of tread lugs, each
tread lug having a radially outer surface, the radially outer
surface having an asymmetric curvature such that a radially
outermost point on each surface is not located on an axis of
symmetry of each tread lug,
the plurality of circumferential rows including a first
row of lugs extending from a lateral tread edge of the tread
axially inward to a row of first sipes, the plurality of
circumferential rows further including a second row of lugs
axially located between the first row of lugs, a third row of
lugs, and a fourth row of lugs, a shape of the lugs of the second
row of lugs being defined by the first sipes, a first row of lateral
grooves, a row of second sipes, a row of third sipes, and a
second row of lateral grooves,
the row of second sipes being inclined alternately with
equal, but opposite, angles,
the row of third sipes being disposed coincidently on a
centerplane of the tread,
the first row of lateral grooves and the second row of
lateral grooves each having a depth of between 70 percent to
100 percent of a non-skid depth of the tread and each being
angled between 30 degrees and 60 degrees relative to a
centerplane of the tread.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
claims:
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136

7
Name Reference Date
Bettiol et al.
(“Bettiol”)
US 2003/0056867 A1 Mar. 27, 2003
Lopez et al.
(“Lopez”)
US 6,843,290 B2 Jan. 18, 2005
Kimishima et al.
(“Kimishima”)
US 7,093,630 B2 Aug. 22, 2006
Neubauer et al.
(“Neubauer”)
US 2010/0032067 A1 Feb. 11, 2010
Hayashi US 7,874,332 B2 Jan. 25, 2011
Ashton et al.
(“Ashton”)
US 9,027,611 B2 May 12, 2015
Yoda US 9,038,681 B2 May 26, 2015
Ochi et al.
(“Ochi”)
US 9,150,058 B2 Oct. 6, 2015
Kuwabara3 JP 11–245627 A Sept. 14, 1999
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 1034 as obvious: (1) claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 over Lopez in view
of Yoda, as evidenced by Ashton, and further in view of Bettiol, Kimishima,
Hayashi, and Neubauer; (2) claims 3, 5, 13, and 15 over Lopez in view of
Yoda, as evidenced by Ashton, and further in view of Bettiol, Kimishima,
Hayashi, Neubauer, and Kuwabara; and (3) claims 4 and 14 over Lopez in
view of Yoda, as evidenced by Ashton, and further in view of Bettiol,
Kimishima, Hayashi, Neubauer, and Ochi. Final Act. 3–13.

3 The Examiner relies on a machine translation of Kuwabara, to which
Appellant does not object. Final Act. 11.
4 Because this application was filed after the March 16, 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136

8
DISCUSSION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections.
Appellant argues claims 1–5 and 11–15 as a group. See generally
Appeal Br. 3–7. Appellant offers substantially similar arguments in support
of the patentability of claims 1 and 11. Id. Because we consider the
evidence insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to recitations found in each of independent claims 1 and 11, we need
only address claim 1.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Lopez, Yoda, Ashton,
Bettiol, Kimishima, Hayashi, and Neubauer, teaches all limitations of claim
1. Final Act. 3–9.
Regarding the Examiner’s reliance upon Yoda, Ashton, Bettiol,
Kimishima, and Hayashi to modify Lopez, Appellant argues that “it cannot
be determined what is being modified.” Appeal Br. 3. With respect to the
Examiner’s application of Neubauer, Appellant argues that “modifying
Lopez now by five other treads amounts to a redesign of the tread of Lopez,
not [an] obvious modification.” Id. at 4.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136

9
What the references would have meant to one of ordinary skill in the
art, not their number, is the criterion for determining whether the references
would have rendered a claim obvious. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986
(Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re Miller, 159 F.2d 756, 758–59 (CCPA 1947)
(rejecting the argument that the need for eight references for a rejection
supported patentability); In re Troiel, 274 F.2d 944, 947 (CCPA 1960)
(rejecting appellant’s argument that combining a large number of references
to show obviousness was “farfetched and illogical”)). In the present case,
the combination of seven references for a rejection of a claim of the length
of claim 1 is not conclusive of nonobviousness.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness because the applied prior art cannot “disclose or
suggest a tread as recited in [c]laim 1.” Appeal Br. 4. According to
Appellant, the Examiner provides no factual basis or rational underpinning
to support the numerous modifications and the obviousness determination.
Id.
We disagree. As the Examiner responds, Appellant fails to address
“how or why the proposed modification[s] fail[] to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness.” Ans. 5. More substantive arguments are required in an
appeal brief to overcome a rejection. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Our review of
the Final Office Action finds that each of the Examiner’s proposed
modifications of Lopez’s tread is identified and the rejection explains a
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136

10
teaching, suggestion, or motivation for each modification proposed. See
Final Act. 3–9.
Appellant argues that the tire treads of the applied prior art “are
directed to different applications, with different operating parameters.”
According to Appellant, “[t]he Examiner has not established the
predictability of the result of the many modifications proposed by the
Examiner to six operationally disparate tires, such as Lopez, Yoda, Bettiol,
Kimishima, Hayashi, and Neubauer.” Appeal Br. 5.
The Examiner responds that “all references cited – and relied upon . . .
are prior art disclosures [i]n the same field of endeavor of tire tread patterns
of the heavy duty (heavy load) type.” Id. at 6 (citing Lopez 1:7–11; Yoda 1:
6–9; Bettiol ¶ 1; Kimishima 1:34–35; Hayashi 1:10–13; Neubauer ¶ 2;
Ashton 1:19–24).
In view of the Examiner’s explanation, Appellant’s assertion that the
prior art of record cannot provide the predictability of the result is
unpersuasive of reversible error. Our review of the relied-upon passages
from each reference supports the Examiner’s reasoned finding that each
reference is in the same field of endeavor. Thus, Appellant’s assertion that
the Examiner has impermissibly combined “operationally disparate tires” is
not convincing. See Appeal Br. 5. One of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have combined the prior art elements in the
heavy duty/load type tire treads of Lopez, Yoda, Ashton, Bettiol,
Kimishima, Hayashi, and Neubauer to yield predictable results. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Appeal 2020-001984
Application 15/678,136

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 11, 12 103
Yoda, Ashton,
Bettiol, Kimishima,
Hayashi, Neubauer
1, 2, 11, 12
3, 5, 13, 15 103
Yoda, Ashton,
Bettiol, Kimishima,
Hayashi, Neubauer,
Kuwabara
3, 5, 13, 15
4, 14 103
Yoda, Ashton,
Bettiol, Kimishima,
Hayashi, Neubauer,
Ochi
4, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 11–15
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED