Ex Parte Benzing

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 2, 2019

14483483 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/483,483 09/11/2014 James Alfred Benzing II
27280 7590 01/04/2019
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
200 Innovation Way
AKRON, OH 44316-0001
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.
DN2010-053-D02 2394
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, CEDRICK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1743
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2019 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
patents@ good year.com
pair_goodyear@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES ALFRED BENZING II
Appeal2018---002962
Application 14/483,483
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-5. (Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed September 11, 2014, as amended on December 1, 2016
("Spec."); Final Office Action dated January 19, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal
Brief filed March 13, 2017 ("Br."); and Examiner's Answer dated
September 26, 2017 ("Ans.").
2 Appellant identifies The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company as the real
party in interest. (Br. 3.)
Appeal2018---002962
Application 14/483,483
THE INVENTION
Appellant states that the invention relates to a non-pneumatic tire and
a method of constructing such a non-pneumatic tire. (Spec. ,r 1.)
Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, is representative and
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method for constructing a non-pneumatic tire
comprises the steps of:
sliding a carcass ply structure into engagement with a bladder;
seating a first circular bead of the carcass ply structure onto a
mold;
partially inflating the bladder to form a bulged carcass ply
structure;
pouring an elastomer into the mold;
seating a second circular bead of the carcass ply structure onto a
mold cap;
closing the mold with the mold cap for enclosing the elastomer;
fully inflating the bladder for facilitating engagement of the
elastomer with the carcass ply structure;
curing the elastomer; and
removing the combined carcass ply structure/elastomer which
now forms an anisotropic structure having different mechanical
properties in the circumferential direction of the non-pneumatic tire
and the radial direction of the non-pneumatic tire.
(Br. 9, Claims Appendix.)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 5 as obvious over Steinke et al. (US 2003/0209309
Al, published on November 13, 2003, "Steinke"), Britton et al.
(US 4,012,479, issued on March 15, 1977, "Britton"), and Chrobak
2
Appeal2018---002962
Application 14/483,483
(US 2003/0024622 Al, published on February 6, 2003,
"Chrobak");
2. Claims 2 and 3 as obvious over Steinke, Britton, Chrobak, and
Mead (US 3,449,199, issued on June 10, 1969, "Mead"); and
3. Claim 4 as obvious over Steinke, Britton, Chrobak, Mead, Midgley
(US 762,740, issued June 14, 1904, "Midgley"), and Marchini et
al. (US 2010/0032864 Al, published February 11, 2010,
"Marchini").
(Final Act. 3-8; Ans. 2-5.)
Appellant states that dependent claims 2-5 stand or fall with
independent claim 1. (Br. 4.) Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative for disposition of this appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
ISSUE
The Examiner found that Steinke discloses a method of forming a
non-pneumatic elastomeric tire including the method steps recited in claim
1, with the exception of seating a first bead of the carcass ply structure onto
a mold, partially inflating a bladder, seating a second of the carcass ply
structure onto a mold cap, closing the mold for enclosing the elastomer, and
fully inflating the bladder for facilitating engagement of the elastomer with
the carcass ply structure. (Ans. 2.)
The Examiner found that Britton discloses a method of forming,
molding, and curing tires including lowering a green tire band, which the
Examiner found to be a carcass equivalent, into a tire mold over an inflatable
curing bladder until the lower bead is seated, applying a pressurizing fluid to
3
Appeal2018---002962
Application 14/483,483
a first pressure level, lowering the upper mold section until a bead ring is
seated with the upper bead of the tire band, and further inflating the bladder
to a second pressure level, closing the mold and curing the tire. (Ans. 2-3.)
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to form a
non-pneumatic tire as disclosed in Steinke in the manner taught by Britton to
reduce the chance of forming a non-uniform finished tire. (Ans. 3.)
The Examiner acknowledged that Steinke as modified by Britton does
not disclose an anisotropic structure as recited in claim 1. (Ans. 3.)
However, the Examiner found that Chrobak discloses a method of
manufacturing and tire design where the tire may include anisotropic
features to facilitate the distribution of stress in the circumferential and
radial directions, and as a result, the Examiner determined that it would have
been obvious to have designed a non-pneumatic tire as disclosed in Steinke
in view of Britton to incorporate anisotropic features to facilitate the
distribution of stress. (Ans. 3.)
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's findings with respect to the
prior art. (See Br. 4--8.) Rather, Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have combined the different methods of forming a
rubber tire in Britton and forming an elastomer tire of Steinke in a manner
that would produce predictable results, because such a combination does not
amount to combining familiar elements according to known methods. (Br.
6.) Appellant contends also that the results of using the anisotropic structure
of Chrobak in forming the elastomer tire of Steinke in view of Britton cannot
be predicted, such that the combination does not amount to combining
known elements by known methods in order to obtain predictable results.
(Br. 7-8.)
4
Appeal2018---002962
Application 14/483,483
The dispositive issue is:
Has Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that one of ordinary skill in art would have combined Steinke,
Britton, and Chrobak to provide a method forming a non-pneumatic
elastomeric tire with the anisotropic structure required by claim 1?
DISCUSSION
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Although Appellant
argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Steinke
and Britton because each discloses different processes employing differing
temperatures, pressures, and material transport requirements, Appellant does
not provide sufficient explanation or evidence as to why the mere difference
in such parameters would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art
from combining Steinke and Britton. (Br. 6.)
As the Examiner explains, both Steinke and Britton employ an
inflatable bladder, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
reason to substitute the partial inflation steps of Britton to aid in seating the
tire beads and shaping the tire core in Steinke. (Ans. 6, citing Steinke
,r,r 8,24; Britton, col. 2, 11. 4--8, col. 3, 11. 60-65.) Appellant has not
identified reversible error in the Examiner's position that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been able to adjust temperature, pressure, and
material transport requirements depending on the materials of the tire and
tire build up components. (Ans. 6-7.) Indeed, Steinke's disclosure of
temperature control in forming and curing the elastomer, as well as the
difference in belt materials, provides evidence that one of ordinary skill in
the art would be capable of adjusting and optimizing processing conditions
5
Appeal2018---002962
Application 14/483,483
as appropriate. (See Steinke ,r,r 36, 37, 39-41, 48.) Thus, the evidence of
record does not support the Appellant's position that the combination of
Steinke and Britton would have been beyond the abilities of one of ordinary
skill in the art, and would have produced unpredictable results.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that incorporating
the anisotropic structures of Chrobak into the combined method of Steinke
and Britton would have been unpredictable. Appellant does not provide
sufficient explanation to support this position, particularly in view of the
disclosure in Chrobak (i-f 22) that:
Anistropy may be provided in the tire design by
formation of reinforcing structures circumferentially and/ or
radially within the inside surface of the toroidal structure. Such
reinforcing structures may be formed integrally with the tire
during molding, casting, etc., or the reinforcing structures may
be formed and adhered to the inside surfaces if desired.
Appellant does not provide sufficient explanation as to why this disclosure
in Chrobak would have been insufficient to provide one of ordinary skill in
the art the necessary information to apply such techniques in the modified
method of Steinke and Britton, and why such application would have led to
unpredictable results. (See Ans. 7-8.)
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over Steinke, Britton, and Chrobak. As discussed above, because
Appellant does not argue the rejections of claims 2-5 separately, we affirm
the Examiner's rejections of these claims for similar reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5.
6
Appeal2018---002962
Application 14/483,483
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
7