Ex Parte Vossen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 3, 2019

13136758 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/136,758 08/10/2011 Horst Vossen
47988 7590 06/03/2019
Walter Ottesen, P.A.
POBOX4026
GAITHERSBURG, MD 20885-4026
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.
2015P02329 7403
EXAMINER
LEE, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2019 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 ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HORST VOSSEN
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREYT. SMITH, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a fmal
rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
The invention is directed to methods and devices for cleaning tire
tread mold parts having multiple air/gas release valves. Spec. 1; Figure 1.
These mold parts are conventional in the art. Spec. 1-2. In the prior art, the
molds are disassembled and cleaned after empirically specified operating
cycles. Id. at 2. The prior art also cleans the molds in rinsing solutions by
using ultrasound in cleaning baths which are successively run through by the
mold parts. Id. The prior art recognizes that it is difficult to clean and
remove contaminants on valves and valve springs which are not sufficiently
reached for dirt removal during cleaning. Spec. 3; see also Johnston, 1 col. 1,
11. 15-25 ( disclosing the difficulty of removing contaminants from a mold
having intricately contoured surfaces characterized by inward projections for
forming the tire tread indentations and by valleys there between forming the
projections of the tire tread) and Carter, 2 col. 1, 11. 44---62 ( disclosing that
molds having valves require frequent cleaning to ensure their proper
operation during the molding process).
Appellant addresses this problem by providing a method, and
corresponding device, where the cleaning is conducted using sequential
cleaning baths that include a plurality of ultrasonic transducers with an
intervening dry inspection step to check contaminants remaining after the
frrst cleaning step. See Claim 1. At the intervening dry inspection, the
valve pins are subject to ultrasound from an ultrasound head to check the
movability of the valve pins and loosen the same before conducting a second
cleaning of the molds. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below:
1 US 3,990,906, issued November 9, 1976, of record.
2 US 4,662,833, issued May 5, 1987, of record.
2
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
1. A cleaning method for cleaning profile molds for
producing tire profiles on caps of vehicle tires, the profile
molds comprising mold segments having recesses with
openings for discharging air and gases when pressing the tire
profiles and the openings having respective valves disposed
therein, each of the valves including a valve housing, a valve
pin and a valve spring, the valve pin being movable against the
force of the valve spring to open and close the valve, the
method comprising the steps of:
cleaning the mold segments in liquid rinsing suds in a
primary cleaning chamber by applying ultrasound generated by
ultrasound transducers arranged in the primary cleaning
chamber around and below the mold segments;
moving the mold segments into a dry inspection unit and
providing a manual operator-controlled ultrasound device
having an ultrasound head adapted to the dimension of the
valve pin;
checking the valves as to contaminants remaining after
the first cleaning step in the primary cleaning chamber by
applying ultrasound emitted by the ultrasound head to the valve
pins to check the movability of the valve pins and loosen the
same while said mold segments are in said dry inspection unit;
and,
subsequently again cleaning the profile mold segments in
liquid rinsing suds in a secondary cleaning chamber, in which
ultrasound transducers are arranged at the bottom wall and the
side walls of the secondary cleaning chamber around the mold
segments.
Independent claim 13 is also directed to a method for cleaning profile
molds for producing tire profiles on caps of vehicle tires that is substantially
similar to claim 1. Independent claims 9 and 10 are directed to devices used
to practice the method of claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
Appellant3 requests review of the following rejections from the
Examiner's Final Office Action:
I. Claims 1, 4 and 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnston (US 3,990,906, issued November 9, 1976),
Wurster(DE 10 2007 032 147 Al, published January 8, 2009 and relying on
an English machine translation dated August 24, 2012), Ahn (US
2004/0005371 Al, published January 8, 2004), Carter (US 4,662,833, issued
May 5, 1987), Lemelson (US 3,154,890, issued November 3, 1964), and
Landua(US 5,544,667, issued August 13, 1996).
II. Claims 2 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnston, Wurster, Ahn, Carter, Lemelson, Landua, and
Hirose (US 7,360,749 B2, issued April 22, 2008).
III. Claims 6-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hirose, Wurster, Lemelson, Landua, Ahn, and Carter.
OPINION
The Prior Art Rejections
Rejection!
Appellant relies on the same arguments to address the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 13 and dependent claim 4. App. Br. 41--4 2.
Appellant presents additional arguments addressing the rejections of
dependent claims 14 and 15. Id. at 43--48. Accordingly, claims 4 and 13
stand or fall with claim 1. We address claims 14 and 15 separately.
After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and
3 Continental Reif en Deutschland GmbH, a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, and inventor
Horst Vossen are identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
4
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
Answer, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, and 13-15 for
the reasons the Examiner presents. We add the following for emphasis.
Independent Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner fmds that the combined
teachings of Johnston and Wurster would have suggested a cleaning method
for cleaning profile molds for producing tire profiles on caps of vehicle tires
that differs from the claimed method in that the combined teachings do not
explicitly disclose that the mold segments have valves disposed in openings
as claimed. Final Act. 3; Johnston, col. 2, 11. 31-39, col. 4, 1. 57---col. 5, 1.
29; Wurster,r,r 27, 28, 45. The Examiner fmds Ahn discloses that molds for
tire treads having such valves are known in the art. Final Act. 3--4; Ahn
Figure 3 (valve (ref. #42) comprising valve pin (ref. #48), valve housing
(ref. #44), valve spring (ref.#50)); id. at ,r 25. The Examiner also fmds that
it was well known in the art at the time of the invention that molds with
valves required frequent cleaning to ensure proper operation. Final Act. 4;
Carter, col. 1, 11. 44---62. Thus, the Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to clean Ahn's molds with
valves using the cleaning method of Johnston and Wurster because it would
result in an effective method of cleaning tire molds having intricately
contoured surfaces and such cleaning would improve the vulcanization of
the tire. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner also fmds that the combined teachings of Johnston,
Wurster, Ahn, and Carter do not teach an intervening dry inspection between
cleaning steps where an ultrasound device is used at the intervening dry
inspection step to loosen contaminants that may still be present in the valve
after the frrst cleaning step. Final Act. 4. The Examiner fmds that Landua,
5
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
directed to cleaning molds, teaches that it is conventional to have a dry
inspection step to check for the quality of the cleaning following a cleaning
step. Final Act. 5---6; see Landua, Figure 7, col. 1, 11. 7-11, col. 2, 11. 28--41,
col. 3, 1. 65---col. 4, 1. 6, col. 7, 11. 1-10. The Examiner also fmds that
Lemelson teaches the use of an ultrasonic tool to clean and inspect
workpieces in a dry environment as known. Final Act. 4--5; see Lemelson,
col. 1, 11. 41--44, col. 2, 11. 19--41, col. 4, 11. 51-56. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
modify the method from combined teachings of Johnston, Wurster, Ahn, and
Carter to include a dry cleaning/inspection step after an immersion cleaning
step to inspect the cleaning quality, as Landua teaches. Final Act. 5---6. The
Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use Lemelson' s ultrasound device to conduct the
dry cleaning/inspection step in view ofLemelson's teachings. Id.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention interrupts the cleaning of
the molds in liquid suds by moving the molds to a dry inspection unit where
the valves in the mold are inspected and remaining contaminants are
loosened using an ultrasound device. App. Br. 31-32. According to
Appellant, "the idea of providing a QIY inspection unit between two cleaning
chambers containing ultrasound transducers is nowhere suggested by any
combination of the cited references." Id. at 34. Appellant further argues
that the Examiner provides conclusory statements and relies on
impermissible hindsight in reaching the determination that the claimed
invention would have been obvious to one skilled in the art from the
combined teachings of the six cited references. Id. at 38--40.
6
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
Appellant's arguments do not identify error in the Examiner's
determination of obviousness. An improvement in the art is obvious if "it is
likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
sense." KSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007). See also,
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. Info USA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
2009) ("hold[ing] that while an analysis of obviousness always depends on
evidence that supports the required Graham factual fmdings, it also may
include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the
person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any
reference or expert opinion").
As we note above, the Examiner established that it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to arrive at a method for cleaning molds
having valves by using multiple immersion cleaning baths, the baths
including ultrasound transducers to assist in the cleaning, from the combined
teachings of Johnston, Wurster, Ahn, and Carter. See Final Act. 2--4. The
Examiner found that Landua teaches a method of cleaning molds using
immersion baths followed by a dry inspection unit to check the quality of the
cleaning. Id. at 5---6. This disclosure supports an inference that one skilled
in the art would have subjected the object to further cleaning if the quality of
the cleaning is not as desired. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264---65
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that a reference stands for all of the specific
teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom). The Examiner
also fmds that Lemelson teaches the use of an ultrasound device at a dry
inspection is known for the purpose of cleaning a surface of a workpiece.
Id. at 4---6. The Examiner notes that it is common sense for one skilled in the
7
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
art to inspect the cleaning quality of an object once cleaned. Ans. 22-23.
Thus, the Examiner has provided a reasonable basis for one skilled in the art
to arrive at the claimed invention from the combined teachings of the cited
art. Based on this record, the Examiner has properly relied on the collective
teachings of the prior art references taken as a whole to arrive at the claimed
invention.
While Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on six references
is improper (App. Br. 38-39), reliance on a large number of references in a
rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the
claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982,986 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
("The criterion, however, is not the number of references, but what they
would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.")
We find this argument unavailing because we agree with the Examiner's
determination of obviousness.
We have also considered Appellant's additional arguments regarding
the cited references. App. Br. 25-35. These arguments principally attack
the references individually and, thus, do not address the rejection the
Examiner presents. It is well-established that nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986);Jn re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425
(CCPA 1981) ("The test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.").
Dependent Claim 14
Claim 14 recites that the ultrasound head of a manually operated
ultrasound device be adapted to the dimensions of the valve pins.
8
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
The Examiner fmds that Lemelson teaches a manually operated
ultrasound device used in the cleaning and inspection of equipment that
comprises an opening to contact the surface to be cleaned. Final Act. 9-1 O;
Lemelson, col. 3, 11. 11-14.
Appellant argues that there is no disclosure in Lemelson of adapting
the portable ultrasound device to comport to any specific size for any
specific purpose. App. Br. 44.
Appellant's arguments does not persuade us of reversible error in the
Examiner's determination for the reason the Examiner presents. Ans. 27.
Moreover, Lemelson suggests the importance of focusing the ultrasound
waves on a small area of a surface by disclosing the use of rubber as at least
part of the forward end of the ultrasound device portion contacting the
surface of the workpiece. LemelsonFigures 1, 5, and 6, col. 3, 11. 32-34,
col. 3, 1. 74---col. 4, 1. 10. Given this disclosure, Appellant has not explained
sufficiently why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary
creativity, would not have been capable of modifying Lemelson's ultrasound
device to comport to the desired area to be cleaned/inspected by the tool,
including the dimensions of the valve pin surface. See KSRint'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."); see also In re Sovish, 769
F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on the part of one of
ordinary skill in the art).
Dependent Claim 15
Claim 15 recites that the ultrasound transducers in the secondary
cleaning chamber are arranged at the bottom and sidewalls of the chamber.
9
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
We refer to the Examiner's Final Action for a statement of rejection of
this claim. Final Act. 10. In the Answer, the Examiner relies on Wurster as
teaching the placement of ultrasound transducers around and below an
objectto be clean. Ans. 27; Wurster Figure 2; ,r 25.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's reasons for providing ultrasound
transducers as claimed are unsupported. App. Br. 45--47.
We disagree. A closer reading ofWurster'sparagraph25, in light of
paragraph 45, discloses that at least on side ultrasound source (ultrasound
transducer 58) and one bottom ultrasound source ( oscillator 60) can be
combined in an immersion bath. Thus, Wurster teaches the claimed
placement of ultrasound sources. Appellant has not explained sufficiently
why one skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not
have been capable of using ultrasound transducers for the bottom ultrasound
source particularly since Johnston suggests an arrangement of ultrasound
transducers in different orientations within a cleaning bath. Final Act. 3;
Johnston Figure 3, col. 4, 1. 57---col. 5, 1. 53.
Accordingly, we affrrm the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1,
4 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons the Examiner presents
and we provide.
Rejection!!
Dependent Claim 2
Claim 2 recites pre-cleaning the molds using a pre-cleaning chamber.
Claim 3 recites a rinsing the molds after each pre-cleaning/cleaning.
10
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
To the extent that Appellant relies on the arguments presented when
discussing claim 1 to address the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3
(App. Br. 52-54), we direct attention to our discussion above on the issues
raised by these arguments. Appellant presents additional arguments for
claim 2 (id. at 50-52), which we now address.
With respect to claim 2, the Examiner relies on Hirose, directed to
cleaning vulcanizing molds, as teaching pre-cleaning of molds prior to
subjecting the molds to a cleaning step. Final Act. 10-11; Hirose, col. 1, 11.
8-10, col. 6, 11. 24--34.
Appellant additionally argues that Hirose does not disclose the pre-
cleaning step/ chamber of claim 2. App. Br. 5 2. The premise of Appellant's
arguments is that Hirose's molds to be cleaned are different from the
claimed molds to be cleaned and, therefore, the respective processes are also
different. Id. at 50-52.
We are unpersuaded because, as the Examiner states, Appellant's
arguments do not address the reasons for which the Examiner relies on
Hirose. Ans. 28.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 2
and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons the Examiner presents and
we provide.
Rejection III
Appellant relies on the same arguments to address the rejection of
independent claims 9 and 10 and dependent claims 6-8, 11, and 12. App.
Br. 65-74. Accordingly, we select claim 9 as representative of the subject
matter claimed and claims 6-8, and 10-12 stand or fall with claim 9.
11
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
After review of the respective positions the Appellant provides in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner provides in the Final Action and
Answer, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 6-12 for the
reasons the Examiner presents. We add the following for emphasis.
We refer to the Examiner's Final Action for a complete statement of
the rejection. Final Act. 11-18. We note that Appellant states that the basis
of this rejection is essentially the same as Rejection I, except that Hirose
substitutes for Johnston as the primary reference. App. Br. 55-59.
Therefore, to the extent that Appellant relies on the arguments presented
when discussing claim 1 to address the rejection of claims 6-12, we again
direct attention to our discussion above on the issues raised by the
previously considered arguments. We limit our discussion here to additional
arguments that Appellant presents.
Independent Claim 9
Claim 9 is directed to a cleaning arrangement for cleaning profile
molds.
Appellant argues that the primary reference to Hirose is unrelated to
the manufacture of tires and is rather directed to the manufacture of products
requiring only one or few valves. Id. at 60. Appellant further asserts that
the structure of the valves in the tire molds of the claimed invention is
different from Hirose' s valves and that the valves recited in the claim
require the claimed cleaning arrangement to ensure proper use of the mold in
the tire molding process. Id. at 60----61.
The arguments do not persuade us of reversible error for the reasons
the Examiner presents. The premise of Appellant's argument is that the
patentability of the claimed cleaning arrangement is predicated on the valve
12
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
structure of the mold being cleaned.
As the Examiner notes (Ans. 29-30), an apparatus must be
distinguished from the prior art apparatus on the basis of structure.
Therefore, the patentability of an apparatus claim ( cleaning arrangement, in
this case) depends only on the claimed structure for the apparatus, not on the
use or purpose of that structure or the function or result of that structure.
Catalina Mtg. Int'l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.cominc.,289 F.3d 801,809 (Fed.
Cir. 2002); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCP A 1959); In re Gardiner,
171 F.2d 313, 315-16 (CCP A 1948). Language in an apparatus claim
directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which
these apparatus components work that does not structurally limit the
apparatus components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus from
an otherwise identical prior art apparatus will not support patentability. See,
e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344--45 (CCP A l952);In re Otto, 312 F.2d
937,940 (CCP A 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663---64 (CCP A 1971);
In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958,959 (CCPA 1973). Appellant does not provide
an adequate technical explanation or direct us to other objective evidence
that structurally distinguishes the claimed apparatus from the prior art
apparatus.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 6-
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons the Examiner presents and we
provide.
ORDER
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1--4 and 5-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
13
Appeal 2017-010900
Application 13/136, 758
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ).
AFFIRMED
14