Ex Parte Assaad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13912655 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/912,655 06/07/2013 Mahmoud Cherif Assaad
27280 7590 06/29/2016
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.
DN2013-002 5099
EXAMINER
LY, KENDRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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 MAHMOUD CHERIF AS SAAD, WALTER KEVIN
WESTGATE, RALPH JOACHIM OLBRICH, DANIEL MA YER, JOHN
WOODS, NATHAN WHITNEY LOVE, and ANDREAS RENKEN
Appeal2015-003330
Application 13/912,655
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1 through 3, 5, and 6. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal is generally directed to a pneumatic tire
comprising a single carcass ply that includes only one type of composite
cord, which consists of one single aramid first yam twisted helically about
one single polyester second yam. (Spec. ,-i 60.) The composite cord
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company. (Appeal Brief filed November 4, 2014 ("App. Br.") at 3.)
Appeal2015-003330
Application 13/912,655
has an end count per inch in the carcass ply of 15 to 40 EPI (5.9 to 15.8 ends
per cm). (Spec. iJ 63.)
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative
claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief.
1. A pneumatic tire comprising:
a single carcass ply; and
at least one belt ply disposed radially outward of the
carcass ply in a crown portion of the tire,
the carcass ply comprising only one type of composite
cord, the cord consisting of one single aramid first yam twisted
helically about one single polyester second yam, the first yam
and the second yam having a different moduli of elasticity, the
first yam having a modulus greater than the modulus of the
second yam, the composite cord having an end count per inch
in the carcass ply in the range of 15 to 40 EPI (5.9 to 15.8 ends
per cm).
(App. Br. 7, Claims Appendix.)
Appellants seek review of the final rej ection2 of claims 1-3, 5, and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
U.S. Patent 4,343,343 issued in the name of Reuter on August 10, 1982
(hereinafter referred to as "Reuter") and U.S. Patent Application Publication
2010/0065178 Al published in the name of Imhoff et al., on March 18, 2010
(hereinafter referred to as "Imhoff') maintained in the Examiner's Answer
entered December 19, 2014 ("Ans.").
2 Final Office Action entered November 3, 2014 ("Final Act.").
2
Appeal2015-003330
Application 13/912,655
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence on this appeal record and each of
Appellants' contentions, we find that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's determination that one of ordinary skill in the art,
armed with the knowledge provided in the applied prior art, would have
been led to the subject matter recited in claims 1-3, 5, and 6 within the
meaning of35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth in the
Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the discussion below primarily
for emphasis and completeness. 3
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Reuter discloses
a pneumatic tire comprising a single carcass ply comprising a composite
cord consisting of a single aramid first yam twisted helically about a single
poiyester second yam. (Compare Finai Act. 2 with App. Br. 4-6.) Nor do
Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that the aramid yam disclosed in
Reuter would inherently have a higher modulus of elasticity than the
polyester yam. (Compare Final Act. 2 with App. Br. 4-6.) The Examiner
acknowledges that Reuter is silent as to the end count per inch of the
composite cord in the carcass ply recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2.
3 Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5, and 6 as a group. (App. Br. 4.) Therefore,
for the purposes of this appeal, we select claim 1 as representative and
decide the propriety of the rejection based on this claim alone. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2013). Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 stand or fall with claim 1. Id.
3
Appeal2015-003330
Application 13/912,655
To account for this recited feature silent in Reuter, the Examiner relies
upon Imhoff's disclosure of a composite cord comprising a high modulus
yam twisted about a low modulus core yam, which has an end count per
inch of 15-32 EPI, and is used to form a carcass ply for a pneumatic tire.
(Final Act. 2-3.) The Examiner also finds that "the claimed end count[s]
per inch for the carcass ply in general are consistent with those commonly
used carcass assemblies known in the tire art as shown[,] for example[,] by
Imhoff (see paragraph 65)." (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner then concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to form Reuter' s composite cord to have the claimed end
count per inch in the carcass ply of Reuter' s pneumatic tire "consistent with
the commonly used carcass assemblies known in the tire art as shown[,] for
example[,] by Imhoff." (Final Act. 2.)
Appellants argue that the effect of the proposed modification of the
composite cord disclosed in Reuter to have an end count per inch in the
carcass ply as disclosed in Imhoff would have been unpredictable, and
contend that the proposed modification therefore would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. (App.
Br. 5-6.) However, Appellants do not contest the Examiner's finding that
"the claimed end count[ s] per inch for the carcass ply in general are
consistent with those commonly used carcass assemblies known in the tire
art as shown[,] for example[,] by Imhoff (see paragraph 65)." (Compare
Final Act. 3 with App. Br. 4-6.) Nor do Appellants proffer any evidence or
4
Appeal2015-003330
Application 13/912,655
identify any teaching in Imhoff and/or Reuter to show that the effect of the
end counts per inch for carcass ply disclosed in Imhoff is highly
unpredictable and/or that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
led to employ the claimed commonly used end counts per inch for carcass
ply disclosed in Imhoff in assembling the composite cord for carcass plies of
Reuter's pneumatic tire. (App. Br. 4-6.); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 IF.
2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA
1972). Nor do Appellants demonstrate in the Appeal Brief the criticality of
the range of end count per inch recited in claim 1. See also In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (indicating that in cases in which the
difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or
other variable within the claims, the applicant must show that the particular
range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves
unexpected results relative to the prior art range.).
Under these circumstances, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner has
reversibly erred in determining that the combined disclosures of Reuter and
Imhoff reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ the claimed commonly used end counts per inch for carcass ply
disclosed in Imhoff in assembling the composite cord for carcass plies of
Reuter's pneumatic tire. In re Kubin, 561F.3d1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
("Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success ... all that
is required is a reasonable expectation of success.") (emphasis omitted,
citing In re 0 'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); In re
5
Appeal2015-003330
Application 13/912,655
Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In cases involving
overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court have consistently held that
even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness .
. . . ").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5,
and 6 under§ 103(a).
CONCLUSION
In view of the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action, Answer,
and above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a) (1) (iv).
AFFIRMED
6