Ex Parte Lionetti et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2019

14674303 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/674,303 03/31/2015 Robert Edward Lionetti
27280 7590 04/04/2019
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.
DN2015-002 1004
EXAMINER
PAQUETTE, SEDEF ESRA A Y ALP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2019 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 ROBERT EDWARD LIONETTI,
RICHARD MBEBWO SAMW A YEBA FOSAM,
ERIK SIMON MARCEL EULER, and
OLIVIER LESCAUD
Appeal2018-003025
Application 14/674,303
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, LILAN REN, and JANEE. INGLESE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision to finally reject claim 1. 2 We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed
July 31, 2017 ("Br."), 3.
2 Claims 2-10 stand withdrawn from consideration. Final Office Action
entered July 27, 2017 ("Final Act."), 1.
Appeal2018-003025
Application 14/674,303
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below with emphases added to highlight contested subject matter:
1. A pneumatic tire comprising:
a carcass reinforced by a carcass ply extending from a
first bead to a second bead; and
a single reinforcement disposed radially outward of the
carcass ply in a crown portion of the pneumatic tire,
the single reinforcement comprising a continuous
polyamide cord forming a generally zig zag pattern
across the width of the crown portion,
the continuous cord being part of a
continuous strip with a constant width of 3 .0 mm
to 30.0 mm,
the continuous cord being part of a group of
cords of identical construction forming 1-5 periods
of sinusoidal wrap per revolution of the pneumatic
tire with cord angles between 25 degrees and 35
degrees varying across a width of the single
reinforcement.
Br. 9 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis and indentations added).
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Iseki 3 in view of Watanabe4 and optionally
Georges5 in the Examiner's Answer entered October 31, 2017 ("Ans.").
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant's contentions, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law,
3 EP 0501782 A2, published September 2, 1992.
4 JP 11-048706 A, published February 23, 1999.
5 US 2012/0125509 Al, published May 24, 2012.
2
Appeal2018-003025
Application 14/674,303
and response to Appellant's arguments, expressed by the Examiner in the
Final Action and the Answer. We add following for emphasis.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the Appellant provides for each ground of rejection
the Appellant contests. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In
re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the
examiner fails to make a prima facie case, "it has long been the Board's
practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's
rejections").
Appellant argues that Iseki, Watanabe, and Georges separately, and in
combination, do not disclose, and would not have suggested, the pneumatic
tire of claim 1. Br. 7. Appellant argues that the Examiner does not provide
a factual basis or rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it
would have been obvious to modify Iseki' s zigzag belt cords to have varying
cord angles, and to have cords comprising at least one period of a sine wave
per revolution of the tire, in order to produce a tire having lighter weight and
improved durability, as taught by Watanabe. Id. Appellant asserts that the
Examiner relies solely on hindsight due to "significant factual deficiencies
contained in the cited references." Id.
Contrary to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner provides reasoning
grounded in sound factual findings-thus having rational underpinning-to
support the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness, as discussed below. In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007) (explaining that there
3
Appeal2018-003025
Application 14/674,303
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness).
The Examiner finds that Iseki discloses pneumatic tire 1 comprising
carcass 5 reinforced by a carcass ply that extends between first and second
beads 4, 4, and belt 6 (single reinforcement) disposed radially outside
carcass 5 in a crown portion of pneumatic tire 1. Final Act. 3; Iseki col. 1, 11.
36-39, col 2, 11. 18-38, Fig. 1. The Examiner finds that Iseki discloses that
belt 6 comprises at least one continuous polyamide cord wound around the
carcass in a zigzag pattern that extends between the edges of belt 6. Final
Act. 3; Iseki col. 2, 11. 33-36, col. 3, 11. 6-9, Fig. 4. Iseki discloses that belt
6 is formed of strip or ribbon 10 ( continuous strip) that includes one to ten
belt cords 11 embedded in coating rubber 12. Iseki col. 2, 1. 54---col. 3, 1. 3.
The Examiner finds that Iseki discloses that ribbon 10 has a width of 5 to 15
mm, which is within the continuous strip width range of 3.0 to 30.0 mm
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3; Iseki col. 3, 11. 4--5. Iseki discloses that
ribbon 10 is wound at an angle of 10 to 80 degrees with respect to the tire
equator, which, as the Examiner finds, encompasses the range of cord angles
of between 25 degrees and 35 degrees recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4; Iseki
col. 3, 11. 12-28, col. 4, 11. 28-30, Fig. 4.
The Examiner finds that Iseki does not disclose that the continuous
polyamide cord forms 1 to 5 periods of sinusoidal wrap per revolution of the
pneumatic tire, and does not disclose that the cord angles vary across a width
of the belt (single reinforcement), and the Examiner relies on Watanabe and
Georges for suggesting these features. Final Act. 4.
Watanabe discloses a belt formed of two or more layers of rubber-
coated cord, and arranged in the periphery of a tire carcass, for reinforcing a
4
Appeal2018-003025
Application 14/674,303
tire tread. Final Act. 4; Watanabe Abst. The Examiner finds that Watanabe
discloses that the cord within each layer of the belt extends in a zigzag
manner between the layer ends to form at least one cycle of a sine wave,
which the Examiner finds falls within the range of 1-5 periods of sinusoidal
wrap as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Watanabe
discloses that the inclination angle of the cord in each layer of the belt at the
position where the cord crosses the equator surface of the tire is less than the
angle of inclination of the cord against the layer edge, which the Examiner
finds corresponds to cord angles that vary across the width of the belt, as
recited in claim 1. Id. Watanabe discloses that this belt structure improves
the durability of the belt while reducing the weight of the tread. Id.
Georges discloses a pneumatic tire comprising a tread, a carcass, and
a belt interposed between the carcass and tread. Georges ,r 4. Georges
discloses that the belt includes a zigzag structure formed from a strip of
rubber reinforced with one or more cords, which Georges discloses improves
the edge durability of the tire without adding excess weight. Id. ,r,r 3, 4.
Georges describes forming the zigzag belt structure on tire building drum 48
having axial circumferential edges 44, 45 by rotating drum 48 while winding
a rubberized strip of cord around the drum in a generally circumferential
direction, such that the rubberized strip extends in an alternating fashion
from drum edge 44 to drum edge 45. Id. ,r 30; Fig. 3. Georges discloses that
the zigzag winding may have two, three, or four waves per drum revolution,
which, as the Examiner finds, falls within the range of 1-5 periods of
sinusoidal wrap per revolution of the pneumatic tire, as recited in claim 1.
Id. ,I,I 31, 33, 34, Figs. 4---6.
5
Appeal2018-003025
Application 14/674,303
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present
application to modify the belt of the pneumatic tire disclosed in Iseki so that
the belt includes a cord that extends in a zigzag manner and has varying cord
angles across the width of the belt, as disclosed in Watanabe, and has 1 to 5
periods of sinusoidal wrap per revolution, as disclosed in Watanabe and
Georges, to improve the durability of the belt without adding excess weight.
Final Act. 5.
Therefore, contrary to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner
articulates a reasoned explanation grounded in thorough and sound factual
findings for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
combine the relied-upon disclosures of the applied prior art references to
arrive at the pneumatic tire recited in claim 1, and the Examiner's rejection
is therefore not based on improper hindsight reasoning. Appellant's
conclusory arguments fail to identify any specific error in the Examiner's
factual findings or rationale for the proposed combination of the applied
prior art, and, in particular, do not identify any specific "factual
deficiencies" in the prior art references. Appellant's arguments are therefore
unpersuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection.
Appellant argues that the result of modifying Iseki' s pneumatic tire
with the teachings of Watanabe and Georges would have been unpredictable
and, therefore, nonobvious, as shown by paragraphs 58---64 of Appellant's
Specification. Br. 4---6, 7-8. Appellant argues that these paragraphs of the
Specification show that pneumatic tires are much more complex than a
combination of familiar elements according to known methods. Br. 8.
6
Appeal2018-003025
Application 14/674,303
Although Appellant reproduces paragraphs 5 8-64 of the Specification
in the Appeal Brief, Appellant's conclusory argument does not explain how
and why this portion of the Specification demonstrates that "the result of
modifying the pneumatic [tire] oflseki by the teachings of Watanabe and
Georges cannot be predicted." App. Br. 4---6, 7-8. Nonetheless, even if
modifying Iseki's pneumatic tire with the teachings of Watanabe and
Georges would have been unpredictable at the time of the invention as
Appellant asserts, it is well-settled that, even in unpredictable arts,
"[ o ]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success ... all that
is required is a reasonable expectation of success." In re Kubin, 561 F.3d
13 51, 13 60 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ( emphasis omitted) ( quoting In re O 'Farrell,
853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). The Examiner's findings are
sufficient to establish that one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would
have expected that modifying the belt of the pneumatic tire disclosed in Iseki
to include a cord that extends in a zigzag manner and has varying cord
angles across the width of the belt, as disclosed in Watanabe, and has 1 to 5
periods of sinusoidal wrap per revolution, as disclosed in Watanabe and
Georges, would successfully improve the durability of the belt without
adding excess weight, as disclosed in Watanabe and Georges.
Finally, although Appellant asserts that a combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is "the current legal standard for
obviousness," the Supreme Court indicated in KSR that Graham v. John
Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), sets out an objective analysis
for applying§ 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. The Court explained:
"Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are ...
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are ... ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
7
Appeal2018-003025
Application 14/674,303
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented."
While the sequence of these questions might be reordered
in any particular case, the factors continue to define the inquiry
that controls.
Id. at 406--07 (internal citation omitted) (quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-
18). In the context of discussing Supreme Court precedent on obviousness,
the Court in KSR indicated that a combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results. Id. at 416 (citing United States v. Adams, 383
U.S. 39, 50-52 (1966)). This statement thus describes a particular
circumstance in which a claimed invention is likely to be obvious, rather
than providing "the current legal standard for obviousness" as Appellant
asserts.
Accordingly, considering the totality of the evidence relied upon in
this appeal, a preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. We accordingly sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8