THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 29, 2020

2019004966 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 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. 14/950,680 11/24/2015 Phaniraj MUTHIGI DN2015-015 7173 27280 7590 06/29/2020 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 200 Innovation Way AKRON, OH 44316-0001 EXAMINER FISCHER, JUSTIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1749 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2020 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 PHANIRAJ MUTHIGI, JAMES GREGORY GILLICK, DAVID RAY HUBBELL, JOHANN PESCHEK, and PADMAKUMAR PUTHILLATH ____________ Appeal 2019-004966 Application 14/950,680 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–5 and 7–14, which constitute 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No. 14/950,680 filed Nov. 24, 2015; the Final Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed March 4, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer dated Apr. 12, 2019 (“Ans.”). 2 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 Appeal 2019-004966 Application 14/950,680 2 all of the non-withdrawn claims pending in Application 14/950,680.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter of the invention relates to a pneumatic tire, and more particularly, to a belt construction for a pneumatic tire. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, represents the claimed 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 belt structure including a first portion and a second portion, the belt structure being disposed radially outward of the carcass ply in a crown portion of the pneumatic tire, the first portion comprising a belt with a belt width extending axially from a first shoulder portion of the crown portion to a second shoulder portion of the crown portion, the second portion comprising a plurality of band structures with widths less than the belt width, one of the band structures having a first group of cords oriented in a first direction relative to a centerline of the pneumatic tire and a second group of cords oriented in a second direction relative to the centerline of the pneumatic tire, the first group of cords being interlaced with the second group of cords, the belt structure being entirely constructed as an integral structure of a single continuous band. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). 3 According to the Final Office Action, claims 6 and 18–20 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-004966 Application 14/950,680 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Tani US 5,316,064 May 31, 1994 Kuze et al. (“Kuze”) JP 11020406 A Jan. 26, 1999 Michiels et al. (“Michiels”) WO 2009/144244 A1 Dec. 3, 2009 REJECTION The Examiner maintains4 the rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 1035 over Michiels, in view of Tani and, optionally, in further view of Kuze. Final Act. 3–5. OPINION We review the appealed rejection 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 in the rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–14. 4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite (Ans. 3). 5 Because this application was filed after the March 16, 2013, effective date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute. Appeal 2019-004966 Application 14/950,680 4 The Examiner rejects all of the pending claims over at least the combination of Michiels and Tani. See Final Act. 3–4. Appellant argues that independent claim 1 is patentable over Michiels, Tani, and Kuze, and makes no additional arguments for patentability of the dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 7. Thus, Appellant argues the claims as a group. Accordingly, we decide the sole ground of rejection on the basis of the arguments made in support of patentability of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Michiels teaches the claim limitations except for (1) the implementation of a continuous winding process between the first portion and the second portion of a belt structure, and (2) the use of the same band to form the first and second portions to define an integral structure of a single continuous band. Final Act. 2–3; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Tani teaches the claim limitations that Michiels does not teach. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4–5. The Examiner concludes that, in the absence of Appellant’s showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used Tani’s continuous winding process to manufacture Michiels tire. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds Michiels acknowledges that such continuous winding results in the manufacture of a tire having greater strength. Id. at 3. Appellant argues “that Michiels, Tani, and Kuze, not separately nor together, disclose or suggest a tire with” a belt structure that is entirely constructed as an integral structure of a single continuous band. Appeal Br. Appeal 2019-004966 Application 14/950,680 5 7. According to Appellant, the Examiner has not his burden in establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. We disagree. This argument of Appellant is not persuasive of reversible error. More substantive arguments are required in an appeal brief to overcome a rejection. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Furthermore, we find that the Examiner has met his initial burden in establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–5. Appellant fails to address (and rebut) the Examiner’s finding that Tani teaches the construction of a tire having a multi-layered crown structure by incorporating a continuous winding process. See Final Act. 3. In the Answer, the Examiner explains that Tani teaches it is known to continuously wind a band from a first layer to a second layer, i.e., the claimed “a first portion” to “a second portion,” respectively. Ans. 15; Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Tani teaches the known use of the same cord to form first and second belt layers by spiral winding. Ans. 5 (citing Tani col. 5, ll. 1+); see also Tani Figs. 1a, 1b. On these bases, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument for reversible error. We sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we likewise sustain the rejection of claims 2–5 and 7–14. Appeal 2019-004966 Application 14/950,680 6 CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–14 Michiels in view of Tani, and, optionally, in further view of Kuze. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7–14 103 Michiels, Tani Kuze 1–5, 7–14 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