Ex Parte Buxton et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 22, 2019

13895149 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/895,149 05/15/2013 48985 7590 04/24/2019 BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC. 10 East Firestone Blvd. AKRON, OH 44317 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Todd Alan Buxton 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. Plll84US2A 7571 EXAMINER DYE, ROBERT C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2019 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): iplawpat@bfusa.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TODD ALAN BUXTON, MICHAEL A. BERZINS, JON I. STUCKEY, BENJAMIN ROBERT RETHMEL, KATHLEEN CLEMMER, and SAM GIVENS Appeal2018-004243 Application 13/895,149 1 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134, Appellant seeks our review of the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7-14, 16, and 18-23. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. We affirm. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, which is also identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2018-004243 Application 13/895,149 BACKGROUND The subject matter as set forth in the independent claims on appeal is directed to an agricultural tire having a laminate disposed on the tread. Br. 18-20 (Claims App'x, Claims 1, 9, 16). Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, and is copied below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. An agricultural tire comprising: a circumferential tread constructed of a base rubber, the circumferential tread having a plurality of bars and a plurality of valleys disposed between the plurality of bars; a pair of sidewalls, wherein the sidewalls do not include bars or valleys; and a polymeric laminate disposed on the circumferential tread and at least one of the pair of sidewalls, such that the polymeric laminate covers the plurality of bars and the plurality of valleys, including a top surface of each bar such that the top surface of the base rubber does not contact a ground surface during initial use of the agricultural tire in a new condition, wherein the polymeric laminate has a greater hardness than the base rubber, and wherein the polymeric laminate has a greater elongation at break than the base rubber. Br. 18. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 7-14, 16, and 18-23-all claims on appeal-under AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over the base 2 Appeal2018-004243 Application 13/895,149 combination ofFerlin, 2 Eomo, 3 and Shimada, 4 as evidenced by HCM Holding Rubber Foam. 5 Final Act. 2---6. The Examiner further rejects 1--4, 7-14, 16, and 18-22 under AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over the base combination ofLindmark, 6 Hosono, 7 Shimada, and at least one of Smith, 8 Eomo, or Miura. 9 Final Act. 7-10. OPINION Rejections based on Ferlin, Eomo, and Shimada Regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 16, the Examiner finds that Perlin discloses an agricultural tire having a protective film applied thereon, where the tire's base rubber tread has a Shore 00 hardness of lower than 60, but does not expressly disclose that the tire has sidewalls or a tread that has a plurality of bars and valleys. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds, however, that "such structures are extremely common and conventional in the art." Id. The Examiner finds further that "F erlin is silent as to the hardness or elongation at break properties of the protective film," but that Eomo's agricultural tire has a "mud sticking preventative layer with [an ASKAR-C] hardness of 30 ([0021-22]) in order to lessen the adherence of mud to the tire 2 US 7,926,529 B2, issued Apr. 19, 2011. 3 JP 08-324209 A, published Dec. 10, 1996, as translated. 4 US 2002/0157747 Al, published Oct. 31, 2005. 5 HCM Holding Rubber Foam, hcmchina.cn/EN/pro_Introduce.asp, Mar. 18, 2010. 6 WO 84/04902, published Dec. 20, 1984. 7 JP 08-17 5116, published Jul. 9, 1996, as translated by machine. 8 US 2003/0140999 Al, published Jul. 31, 2003. 9 JP05-338412 A, published Dec. 21, 1993. 3 Appeal2018-004243 Application 13/895,149 ([0033]). Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that Eomo's protective layer "is shown to cover the bars, valleys, and sidewalls of the tire." Id. The Examiner also provides evidence, undisputed by Appellant, to establish that an ASKAR-C hardness value of 30 is greater than a Shore 00 hardness of 60. Id. The Examiner also finds that, although Perlin teaches its protective film is tear-resistant, Perlin is silent regarding the specifically recited "greater elongation at break than the base rubber." Id. The Examiner thus turns to Shimada's disclosure of a crack-suppressing rubber coating used in tire manufacture which has an elongation at break that is higher than the base rubber to which it is applied. Id. Based on the collective teachings of Perlin, Eomo, and Shimada, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to configure an agricultural tire as recited in the independent claims "in order to provide traction on soil and structure for the tire," "to lessen the adherence of mud to the tire," as well as "to suppress the generation and growth of cracks." Id. at 2-3. Appellant's sole argument against the rejections based on Perlin, Eomo, and Shimada, either with or without additional prior art, is that Eomo teaches away from the claimed arrangement. Br. 12-14. Specifically, Appellant urges that the claims require a polymeric laminate that "has a greater hardness than the base rubber," 10 but "Eomo expressly calls for a 'mud sticking preventative layer composed of an elastic body layer having low hardness.'" Br. 13. Appellant urges that the preventative layer in Eomo 10 The recitation in claim 16 that "the base rubber has a lower hardness than the laminate" is effectively identical to the limitation in claims 1 and 9 that "the [] laminate has a greater hardness than the base rubber." 4 Appeal2018-004243 Application 13/895,149 "has a lower hardness than the base rubber to reduce the amount of mud that sticks to the tire. (See Eomo, ,r,r [0006]-[0009])." Id. This argument is unpersuasive. We have consulted the passages of Eomo relied on by Appellant and do not find a comparison of the hardness values of the base rubber and the preventative layer applied thereon. Eomo ,r,r 6-9. Thus, we discern no persuasive merit to Appellant's contention that Eomo' s mud sticking preventative layer has a lower hardness value than that of the base rubber to which it is applied. Rather, Appellant appears to improperly focus on Eomo's use of a relative term-i.e., "low"-when describing the preventative layer's hardness in isolation. Br. 12-13; Eomo ,r 6. Here, we find no fault in the Examiner's finding that Eomo discloses hardness values for its protective layer ("ASKAR-C hardness of 30," Eomo ,r 21) used in an agricultural tire which is undisputedly greater than the hardness value relied on by the Examiner for the base rubber of Ferlin's agricultural tire ("Shore 00 hardness of 60," Perlin 2:36-38). Final Act. 3. Because Appellant's teaching away argument does not identify error in the rejections based on the combined disclosures of Perlin, Eomo, and Shimada, either with or without additional prior art, we sustain these rejections. Rejections based on Lindmark, Hosono, Shimada, and one of Smith, Eomo, and Miura Because our affirmance of the rejections set forth above is dispositive of all the claims involved in this appeal, it is not necessary for us to address the Examiner's additional grounds of rejection. Final Act. 7-10. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Having decided a single dispositive issue, the ITC was not required to review other matters 5 Appeal2018-004243 Application 13/895,149 decided by the presiding officer); Cf In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Affirmance of rejection of all claims underÂ§ 103(a) made it unnecessary to reach other grounds of rejection). DECISION The Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1--4, 7-14, 16, and 18- 23 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 6