THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 1, 2020

15253983 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2020)

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. 15/253,983 09/01/2016 Austin Gale YOUNG DN2016-014 6557 27280 7590 06/01/2020 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 200 Innovation Way AKRON, OH 44316-0001 EXAMINER DYE, ROBERT C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1749 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2020 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 AUSTIN GALE YOUNG and ROBERT JOHN HERMANN Appeal 2019-004658 Application 15/253,983 Technology Center 1700 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10, and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-004658 Application 15/253,983 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to “a tire including a tread groove with a cross sectional shape specified to reduce generation of cracks in the vicinity of the groove bottom.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A tire comprising a tread portion having at least one circumferential main groove extending in a circumferential direction of the tire and spaced axially apart from an equator of the tire, the circumferential main groove having a circumferential profile shape including a linear inner wall portion extending radially inward from an axially inner edge of the circumferential main groove, an inner arc portion continuous with the linear wall portion and having a smaller radius of curvature than the linear inner wall portion, a linear outer wall portion extending radially inward from an axially outer edge of the circumferential main groove and having a larger length than the linear inner wall portion, an outer arc portion continuous with the outer wall portion and having a smaller radius of curvature than the linear outer wall portion, and a bottom portion of the circumferential main groove extending from the outer arc portion toward the inner arc portion whereby the bottom position has a constant radius of curvature, the inner wall portion extending at an angle of between 0° and 5° with respect to the circumferential direction of the tire, the outer wall portion extending at an angle of between 10° and 20° with respect to the circumferential direction of the tire. 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated November 14, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed November 19, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer dated March 21, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2019-004658 Application 15/253,983 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Durand Yamaguchi et al. (“Yamaguchi”) Ackermann et al. (“Ackermann”) Hazama et al. (“Hazama”) Takigawa Reference US 2008/0121325 A1 US 2011/0192516 A1 US 2012/0024444 A1 JP 06183214 A JP 60193704 A Date May 29, 2008 Aug. 11, 2011 Feb. 2, 2012 Dec. 22, 1992 Oct. 2, 1985 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections on appeal: A. Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act. 4. B. Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Id. at 5. C. Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite. Id. at 6. D. Claims 1, 6, 7, and 113 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ackermann in view of Takigawa. Id. at 8. E. Claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ackermann in view of Takigawa and Yamaguchi. Id. at 9. 3 The Examiner also references claim 12, but Appellant cancelled claim 12. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). Appeal 2019-004658 Application 15/253,983 4 F. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ackermann in view of Takigawa and Hazama. Id. at 10.4 G. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ackermann in view of Takigawa and Durand. Id. OPINION 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 examiner’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. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues all claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 4 (“Claims 2– 3, 6–7, and 10–11 stand or fall with claim 1.”). Therefore, we limit our discussion to claim 1, and decide the appeal as to each ground of rejection on the basis of the Appellant’s arguments as to claim 1. Rejections A–C, enablement, written description, and indefiniteness. The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as not meeting the 4 The Examiner does not explicitly reference Takigawa when stating this rejection. Final Act. 10. It is, however, clear that the Takigawa is included in the rejection because claim 10 depends from claim 1, and the Examiner states that this rejection is “as applied to claim 1 above.” Id. Appeal 2019-004658 Application 15/253,983 5 enablement requirement, lacking written description support, and as indefinite. Final Act. 3–7. The Examiner provides a reasoned explanation for each of these rejections. Id.; see also Ans. 3. Appellant argues that claim 1 is enabled, described fully, and clear because the Specification incorporates Ueda, US 2012/0042998 A1, February 23, 2012 (“Ueda”) in its entirety. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it does not identify error in the Examiner’s rejections. Appellant does not attempt to refute any of the Examiner’s stated reasoning and does not, for example, identify how Ueda provides written description support for claim 1. As a matter of precedent, Appellant is required to identify error. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075. Moreover, as a matter of fairness, Appellant must identify the Examiner’s error in the Appeal Brief so that the Examiner has a fair opportunity to respond in the Answer. Appellant’s bare bones argument here does not meet this requirement. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejections. Additionally, Appellant provides no response to the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 as indefinite. Final Act. 7. We, therefore, summarily sustain those rejections. Rejections D–G, obviousness. The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Ackermann in view of Takigawa. Final Act. 8. The Examiner applies additional references to certain dependent claims. Id. at 9–10. The Examiner finds that Ackermann teaches, for example, a tire with a tread portion. Id. at 8 (citing Ackermann). The Examiner finds that Takigawa teaches a similar tire and teaches groove geometry. Id. at 8–9. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to configure groove walls and angles as taught by Takigawa “in order to improve drainage performance, Appeal 2019-004658 Application 15/253,983 6 steering stability, and gripping performance when cornering.” Id. at 9 (citing Takigawa). Appellant argues that the references do not teach the “tire as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant does not explain what recitations are not taught or why the references fail to teach a recitation. Appellant’s argument is too general to identify error. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that merely asserting that applied prior art does not teach a recited limitation is not substantive argument for separate patentability). Appellant also argues that the Examiner does not provide factual support for the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion, that the Examiner provides no factual support that combining the teachings could be done predictably, and that a tire is “complex and unpredictable.” Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s stated reason to combine the references’ teachings, the Examiner’s citations to the references, or the Examiner’s stated explanation as to why the references’ teachings could be predictably combined. Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 3–5. Also, Appellant identifies no evidence and provides no persuasive reasoning to support Appellant’s assertions. Appellant’s argument is, therefore, unpersuasive. Because Appellant does not persuasively identify error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6, 7, 10, 11 112 Enablement 1–3, 6, 7, 10, 11 Appeal 2019-004658 Application 15/253,983 7 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6, 7, 10, 11 112 Written description 1–3, 6, 7, 10, 11 1–3, 6, 7, 10, 11 112 Indefiniteness 1–3, 6, 7, 10, 11 1, 6, 7, 11 103 Ackermann, Takigawa 1, 6, 7, 11 2, 3 103 Ackermann, Takigawa, Yamaguchi 2, 3 10 103 Ackermann, Takigawa, Hazama 10 11 103 Ackermann, Takigawa, Durand 11 Overall Outcome 1–3, 6, 7, 10, 11 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED