Ex Parte Bailey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2016

13944661 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016)

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.
13/944,661 07/17/2013 Rodney R. Bailey P50-0248-US-DIV1 7043
27215 7590 01/17/2017
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
515 MICHELIN ROAD
GREENVILLE, SC 29605
EXAMINER
ROGERS, MARTIN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2017 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):
nc api. mailbox @ michelin. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RODNEY R. BAILEY and CESAR ENRIQUE ZARAK
Appeal 2015-006019
Application 13/944,661
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 19-23, 25, 26, 28—31, 36 and 38. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 19 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
19. A method for repairing a radial tire having radial cords, the
method comprising: covering a damaged area of the radial tire
with a repair patch, the repair patch comprising a ply package
including a first reinforcement ply comprising a tissue of first
reinforcement cords, with the first reinforcement cords arranged
in a radial direction, and with the first reinforcement ply having
ply ends at sides of the first reinforcement ply having terminal
Appeal 2015-006019
Application 13/944,661
ends of the first reinforcement cords and edges at remaining
sides; and a second reinforcement ply superimposed on the first
reinforcement ply, with the second reinforcement ply centered
over a center of symmetry of the first reinforcement ply without
extending beyond the ply ends or the edges of the first
reinforcement ply, the second reinforcement ply comprising a
tissue of second reinforcement cords that are arranged
essentially in a 0 degrees direction, wherein the 0 degrees
direction is defined as being substantially orthogonal to the first
reinforcement cords and wherein the radial direction is defined
as being substantially alignable with the radial cords; and
aligning the first reinforcement cords to substantially aligned
with the radial cords.
Appellants (see Appeal Brief, generally) request review of the
following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Action:
I. Claims 19-23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 36 rejected under § 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as unpatentable over DiRocco et al., (US 4,284,382, issued August
25, 1981), Baumgardner (WO 85/04619 Al, published October 24, 1985)
and Ferrara (CA 2 3542 84 Al, published January 27, 2003).
II. Claims 30, 31, and 38 rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over DiRocco, Baumgardner, Ferrara, Koch et al., (US
4,798,640, issued January 17, 1989) and Breazeale (US 6,854,374 Bl, issued
February 15, 2005).
III. Claims 19—21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 36, and 38 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams et al., (US 3,306,332,
issued February 28, 1967), Knapton (US 1,968,606, issued July 31, 1934)
and Saito (JP 08-244124 A, published September 24, 1996, and relying on
an English machine translation dated October 15, 2014).
IV. Claims 22, 28, and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Williams, Knapton, Saito and DiRocco.
2
Appeal 2015-006019
Application 13/944,661
OPINION
REJECTIONS BASED ON DIROCCO AS PRIMARY REFERENCE
Rejection 11
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19—23, 25,
26, 28, 29, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over DiRocco
and Baumgardner for the reasons presented by the Examiner.2 We add the
following for emphasis.
Claim 19 is directed to a method for repairing a radial tire having
radial cords using a repair patch comprising a first reinforcement ply and a
second reinforcement ply superimposed on the first reinforcement ply,, the
second reinforcement ply comprising a tissue of second reinforcement cords
that are arranged essentially in a 0 degrees direction, wherein the 0 degrees
direction is defined as being substantially orthogonal to the first
reinforcement cords and wherein the radial direction is defined as being
substantially alignable with the radial cords; and aligning the first
reinforcement cords to substantially aligned with the radial cords.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a statement of the
rejection. Final Act. 7—9.
1 Appellants present arguments for only independent claim 19 and rely on
the same arguments in addressing the rejection of claims 20—23, 25, 26, 28,
29, and 36. App. Br. 14. Accordingly, we select claim 19 as representative
of the subject matter before us on appeal. Claims 20—23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and
36 stand or fall with independent claim 19.
2 A discussion of Ferrara is unnecessary for disposition of this rejection. As
noted by the Examiner, this reference was cited as an optional reference to
teach a feature that is taught or suggested by the primary reference to
DiRocco. Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 9—10.
3
Appeal 2015-006019
Application 13/944,661
Appellants argue the combined teachings of the cited art do not teach
or suggest covering a damaged area with a repair patch as presently claimed.
App. Br. 10. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect
to DiRocco. Id. Instead, Appellants’ arguments focus on Baumgardner
failing to teach or suggest a repair patch with a second reinforcement ply
centered over a center of symmetry of the first reinforcement ply. Id. at 12.
According to Appellants, Baumgardner employs a patch having a second ply
centered relative to the central axis of a plug located eccentrically of the
lengthwise dimension of the patch member. App. Br. 10—11; Baumgardner
5. Thus, Appellants argue, absent impermissible hindsight, Baumgardner
does not teach reinforcement plies having cords arranged and aligned as
presently claimed. App. Br. 12.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons presented by
the Examiner. Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 7—8. Moreover, DiRocco discloses a
tire repair patch comprising plies in 14 and 15 in criss-cross relationship
with the cords of adjacent plies positioned at substantially right angles and
with ply 15 centered over a center of symmetry over ply 14. DiRocco
Figure 3, col. 2,1. 48—col. 4,1. 35. While ply 15 extends beyond the ply
ends or the edges of ply 14, DiRocco recognizes that tire repair patches can
comprise superimposed reinforcement layers of varying sizes centered over
a center of symmetry of a first ply without extending beyond the ply ends or
the edges of the first reinforcement ply. DiRocco Figure 7, col. 5,11. 54—68.
Further, DiRocco discloses that the tire patch illustrated in Figure 7 can also
be built and applied to an inner surface 68 of the radial tire 51 in a similar
manner to that described for the application and preparation of the tire repair
patch 10 of Figures 1—3. DiRocco col. 6,11. 15—19. In addition, DiRocco
4
Appeal 2015-006019
Application 13/944,661
recognizes that a repair patch can be applied with the reinforcing plies
extending generally in a radial direction. Final Act. 8; DiRocco col. 5,11.
36-41. Given this disclosure, Appellants have not adequately explained
why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of modifying the tire
patch of DiRocco’s Figure 3 to comprise superposed layers of reinforcement
plies that do not extend beyond the ply ends or the edges of the first
reinforcement ply, with the first reinforcement ply to be applied in the radial
direction of the tire.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19—23, 25,
26, 28, 29, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.
Rejection II
Claims 30, 31, and 38 require the patch reinforcement layers to
comprise reinforcing cords of specific properties and materials.
The Examiner relies principally on DiRocco and Koch to establish the
use of the claimed reinforcing cords as known for tire patches. Final Act.
10-11; DiRocco col. 2,11. 40-41; Koch col. 8,1. 1.
We have considered Appellants’ arguments regarding this rejection,
but find them unavailing for the reasons presented by the Examiner. App.
Br. 14—17; Ans. 10-11. Appellants’ arguments do not adequately address
the merits of the rejection presented by the Examiner. Appellants do not
adequately explain why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of
using reinforcement cords that are well known for making tire patches in the
tire patch of DiRocco.
5
Appeal 2015-006019
Application 13/944,661
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30, 31, and
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
given above.
REJECTIONS BASED ON WILLIAMS AS PRIMARY REFERENCE
Rejections III3
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19—21, 23, 25, 26,
30, 31, 36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams,
Knapton and Saito for the reasons presented by Appellants.
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a statement of this
rejection. Final Act. 3^4.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner failed to establish the
combination of Williams, Knapton and Saito renders the claimed subject
matter obvious. Claim 19 requires the cords of the first reinforcement ply
be substantially aligned with the radial cords of the tire while the cords of
the second reinforcement ply are arranged substantially orthogonal to the
cords of the first reinforcement ply.
As acknowledged by the Examiner, and argued by Appellants,
Williams requires that the cords of ply 15 run parallel to the radial direction
of the tire's carcass cords (radial cords) and that the overlying ply have its
cords run in the circumferential/O0 direction. Ans. 5; Reply Br. 2—3;
Williams col. 3,11. 29-59. That is, the cords of Williams’ tire repair patch
are arranged in a manner that is opposite to what the claim requires. The
Examiner has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art, absent
3 We limit our discussion to independent claim 19.
6
Appeal 2015-006019
Application 13/944,661
impermissible hindsight, would have modified the cord arrangement of
Williams so as to have the cords of reinforcement ply 15 arranged
substantially aligned with the cords of the radial tire as required by the
subject matter of independent claim 19.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19—21,
23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Williams, Knapton and Saito for the reasons presented by Appellants and
given above.
Rejection IV
The Examiner separately rejected dependent claims 22, 28, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of the
cited art presented when discussing the obviousness rejection of claim 19
above (Rejection III) further in view of the teachings of DiRocco. Final Act.
6—7. As discussed above, the Examiner has not established that the
combined teachings of Williams, Knapton and Saito would have suggested
the subject matter of independent claim 19. The Examiner did not rely on
the additionally cited secondary reference to overcome the previously noted
deficiencies of the combined teachings of Williams, Knapton and Saito. Id.
Accordingly, we also reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of
claims 22, 28, and 29 for the reasons presented by Appellants and given
above.
7
Appeal 2015-006019
Application 13/944,661
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 19-23, 25, 26, 28—31,
36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejections I and II) are affirmed.
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 19-23, 25, 26, 28—31,
36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejections III and IV) are reversed.
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)(1).
AFFIRMED
8