THE YOKOHAMA RUBBER CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2022

2021001567 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2022)

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. 14/911,232 02/09/2016 Masatoshi Shimizu 3138-342.PCT.US 5992 162045 7590 02/25/2022 THORPE NORTH & WESTERN/YOKOHAMA P.O. BOX 1219 SANDY, UT 84091-1219 EXAMINER LY, KENDRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1749 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2022 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): braegger@tnw.com patentdocket@tnw.com warren.archibald@tnw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASATOSHI SHIMIZU and MASATOSHI KUWAJIMA Appeal 2021-001567 Application 14/911,232 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 10-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 “Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Yokohama Rubber Co., LTD. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-001567 Application 14/911,232 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a pneumatic tire for a passenger vehicle. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A pneumatic tire for a passenger vehicle, comprising: a tread portion extending in a tire circumferential direction to form an annular shape; a pair of side wall portions disposed on both sides of the tread portion; a pair of bead portions disposed on inner sides in a tire radial direction of the side wall portions; at least one carcass layer laid between the pair of bead portions, a bead core embedded in each bead portion, at least one reinforcement layer disposed on an outer periphery side of the carcass layer, and a tread rubber layer stacked on an outer periphery side of the reinforcement layer; and an air penetration preventing layer having an air penetration coefficient that is no less than 30 x 10-12 cc·cm/cm2·sec·cmHg and no greater than 50 x 10-12 cc·cm/cm2·sec·cmHg provided in a tire interior and/or on a tire inner surface along the carcass layer; wherein when a tread profile which forms a contour of the tread portion in a tire meridian cross section includes side arcs positioned on outermost sides in a tire width direction of the tread portion, and shoulder arcs positioned on inner sides in the tire width direction of the side arcs; a pair of first boundary lines is defined, each passing through a point of intersection of an extension of the side arc and an extension of the shoulder arc and orthogonal to the tire inner surface; the side wall portions each include a rim check line that extends in a tire circumferential direction; a pair of second boundary lines is defined, each passing through the rim check line in the tire meridian cross section and orthogonal to the tire inner surface; a first region is defined between the pair of first boundary lines; a second region is defined between the first boundary line and the second boundary line; a third region is defined extending from the second boundary line to a bead toe; the first to the third regions have cross-sectional areas (mm2) of SA, SB, and SC, Appeal 2021-001567 Application 14/911,232 3 respectively; and the first to the third regions have periphery lengths (mm) of a, b, and c, respectively, along the tire inner surface, relationships such that 7.5 ≤ SA/a ≤ 11.5 and 2.0 ≤ SB/b ≤ 6.0 are satisfied with respect to ratios SA/a and SB/b; a relationship such that 4.0 ≤ SC/c ≤ 8.0 is satisfied with respect to a ratio SC/c; a linear density of carcass cords of the carcass layer is from 900 dtex / 2 to 1400 dtex / 2; a cord count per 50 mm unit width of the carcass layer is from 52 to 70 cords; and a relationship such that STr/a ≤ 7.5 is satisfied with respect to a ratio STr/a, where STr is a cross-sectional area of the first region of the tread rubber layer. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hanya US 6,213,182 B1 Apr. 10, 2001 Ikawa US 2001/0041762 A1 Nov. 15, 2001 Minami US 6,527,025 B1 Mar. 4, 2003 JP ’694 (machine translation) JP 2012-176694 A Sept. 13, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 11, 14, 15 103 Hanya, JP ’694, Minami, Ikawa 1, 2, 4-7, 10-15 103 JP ’694, Hanya, Minami, Ikawa OPINION Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 11, and 13-15 The Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 11, and 13-15 as a group (Appeal Br. 17, 20). We therefore limit our discussion to one of those Appeal 2021-001567 Application 14/911,232 4 claims, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). Claim 1 requires a passenger vehicle pneumatic tire comprising carcass cords having a linear density from 900 dtex/2 to 1400 dtex/2. Hanya discloses a passenger vehicle pneumatic tire comprising carcass cords having a linear density of 1500 dtex/2 (col. 4, ll. 55-56). Minami discloses a passenger vehicle pneumatic tire comprising carcass cords having a linear density of 1100 dtex/2 (Tables 2, 3, 5). The Examiner finds that Hanya achieves the desired decrease in tire weight, rolling resistance and noise without decreasing tire stiffness and steering ability by reducing the sidewall rubber thickness at the maximum tire width position (P) independently of the carcass cord linear density, and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Minami’s carcass cord linear density in Hanya’s tire because Minami is directed toward the same class of tire as Hanya and “one of ordinary skill in the tire art would reasonably appreciate providing known and suitable carcass cord construction and cord density to the same tire constituent: carcass ply and same type of the tire: tire of passenger car vehicles is obvious” (Non-final 7-8; Ans. 23). The Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used Minami’s carcass cord linear density in Hanya’s tire because there is no alleged benefit of doing so other than to obtain a workable tire, and there is no evidence as to how Minami’s density would affect the performance of Hanya’s tire (Appeal Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 6). Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art Appeal 2021-001567 Application 14/911,232 5 with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Hanya does not limit the carcass cord linear density to the exemplified 1500 dtex/2 value, and JP ’694 does not disclose a carcass cord linear density. One of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, would have had an apparent reason to use in Hanya’s tire other densities known to be used in passenger car tires such as Minami’s 1100 dtex/2, and to use such a known density in JP ’694’s tire, to obtain a tire having the corresponding carcass properties. Claim 1 also requires that “a cord count per 50 mm unit width of the carcass layer is from 52 to 70 cords.” The Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 15): Hanya discloses that the sidewall rubber is usually at least 2 to 4 mm and that this is generally 2 times the carcass cord diameter (see Hanya Col. 1, lines 12-13). Thus, the carcass cords of Hanya are from 1-2 mm in diameter. Consistent with this disclosure, all of the examples of Hanya in Table 1 use a cord diameter of 1.0 mm. Because the Hanya cords are from 1-2 mm in diameter, the cord count per 50 mm unit is in the range of 25 to 50 cords. Hanya’s disclosures that the sidewall rubber thickness usually is at least 2 to 4 mm and generally is 2 times the carcass cord diameter would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art some variability in those values such that the corresponding cord count per 50 mm unit range encompasses values somewhat outside 25-50, such as 52.2 2 The Appellant’s original disclosure does not include the cord count range’s 52 cord endpoint (Spec. 9: 22-26). That endpoint was added by a claim Appeal 2021-001567 Application 14/911,232 6 The Appellant argues that because Hanya indicates a cord count range, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Minami for a cord count (Minami’s cord count is 61 cords/50 mm (Tables 2, 3); 60 cords/50 mm (Table 5)). Hanya does not limit the cord count range, and JP ’694 does not disclose a cord count. One of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, would have used known passenger tire cord counts in Hanya’s and JP ’694’s tires, such as Minami’s cord count, to obtain a tire having the corresponding carcass properties. Claim 1 further requires “a relationship such that STr/a ≤ 7.5 is satisfied with respect to a ratio STr/a, where STr is a cross-sectional area of the first region of the tread rubber layer.” The Examiner concludes (Non-final 6-7): [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of Hanya et al. such that it satisfies the claimed relationship: STr/a ≤ 7.5 because (1) the thickness of the tread of Hanya et al. is relatively constant along the entire peripheral length a; such that to reasonably satisfy the claimed relationship, the tread thickness should be less than 7.5 mm and (2) Hanya discloses thickness Te measured at the tread edge TE is set in the range of about 6 to 15 times the rubber thickness T0 wherein T0 is not less than 0.2 mm (col. 3 lines 40-65). The Appellant argues that there is no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the ratio STr/a as being desirable from amendment that narrowed the range from “45 to 70” to “52 to 70” (May 1, 2019 amendment). Appeal 2021-001567 Application 14/911,232 7 Hanya or JP ’694, and Hanya does not disclose a benefit of Hanya’s tread thickness or reason to use it in JP ’694’s tire (Appeal Br. 19). Regardless of whether Hanya recognizes STr/a as a variable, Hanya would have suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, tread thicknesses of about 1.2 mm (0.2mm x 6) to about 3 mm (0.2 mm x 15) (col. 3, ll. 52-53, 63-65), which are less than 7.5. Hanya would have suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, using those thicknesses in Hanya’s tire and other passenger car tires such as JP ’694’s tire. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 11, and 13-15. We therefore affirm the rejection of those claims. Claims 7 and 12 Claims 7 and 12 require “a bead filler is disposed on an outer periphery side of each of the bead cores and, when the tire meridian cross section of the bead filler has a cross-sectional area of SBFL, a relationship such that 0.10 ≤ SBFL/SC ≤ 0.30 is satisfied with respect to a ratio SBFL/SC,” where SC is the cross-sectional area (mm2) of the third region in claim 1. The Examiner finds (Non-final 14): It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tire of JP ’694 with the claimed relationship of 0.10 ≤ SBFL/SC ≤ 0.30 because JP ’694 teaches bead filler 7 having a height BFh = 10-20% of the section H [0016] and reasonably suggests a bead filler that is small and has a low cross-sectional area. The Appellant argues that the “rejection on page 14 at paragraph 14 asserts that JP 694 discloses a height of the bead filler relative to the section height, such heights are not cross-sectional areas as claimed. There are no Appeal 2021-001567 Application 14/911,232 8 values or data in JP 694 from which to determine that the claimed ratio is obvious over JP 694” (Appeal Br. 20). The Examiner does not establish that JP ’694’s disclosure of a bead filler (7) having a height that is 10-20 % of the distance (SH) between the outer surface of the tread and a line (L) parallel to the tire rotation axis (Fig. 1) would have suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Appellant’s claim 7 and claim 12 bead filler (6) having a cross-sectional area that is 10-30 % of third region’s (i.e., bead region’s) cross-sectional area SC ( in Fig. 1). Consequently, we reverse the rejection of claims 7 and 12. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 11, 14, 15 103 Hanya, JP ’694, Minami, Ikawa 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 11, 14, 15 1, 2, 4-7, 10-15 103 JP ’694, Hanya, Minami, Ikawa 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 11, 13- 15 7, 12 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4-6, 10, 11, 13- 15 7, 12 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 IN PART