Ex Parte Bonko

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

10305758 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/305,758 11/26/2002 Mark Leonard Bonko DN2002215 7559
27280 7590 03/28/2012
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 823
1144 EAST MARKET STREET
AKRON, OH 44316-0001
EXAMINER
MAKI, STEVEN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MARK LEONARD BONKO
__________

Appeal 2010-008861
Application 10/305,758
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, PETER F. KRATZ, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008861
Application 10/305,758

2

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 15.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a tire for use on combines. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A tire for use on combines, the tire comprising:
a carcass reinforced by at least one cord reinforced ply and a
tread having a plurality of tread lugs,
the tread lugs being arranged in two circumferentially offset
rows, a first row extending from a first shoulder toward the
centerplane of the tread, a second row extending from an opposite
shoulder toward the centerplane of the tread, each tread lug of said
first row being similar in shape and a mirror image of the tread lugs of
the second row; and wherein each tread lug has no groove, wherein
each tread lug has a radially outer face which does not cross the
centerplane, and a bracing which crosses said centerplane, wherein a
line K drawn between midpoints of an axially outer end and an axially
inner end of each tread lug is oriented at an angle β of less than 35º to
the axial direction, wherein each tread lug has a minimum lug width
(lw) and an average radial height (Ih), wherein the minimum lug width
is greater than or equal the average radial height (Ih).
Claims Appendix (emphasis added).2

1 Claim 6 is also pending but has been “objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.”
Final Office Action dated June 10, 2009, at 8.
2 Corrected Claims Appendix attached to the Examiner’s Answer dated March 17,
2010 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2010-008861
Application 10/305,758

3

Claims 9 and 14, the other independent claims on appeal, do not limit the
orientation of a line K drawn between midpoints of an axially outer end and an
axially inner end of each tread lug to a particular angle or range of angles. See
Claims Appendix.
The Appellant seeks review of the following rejections:
(1) the rejection of claims 9-11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bertazzoli3 in view of at least one of Hale,4 Bonko,5 and EP
2346; and
(2) the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bertazzoli in view of at least one of Hale, Bonko, and EP 234
and further in view of Shimizu.7
We sustain both of these rejections for the reasons stated in the Examiner’s
Answer and add the following for emphasis.
B. DISCUSSION
The Appellant argues Bertazzoli teaches an industry code R2 rice and cane
wet service tire application. Br. 5-68; Bonko Declaration dated August 18, 2008,
para. 3. In contrast, the Appellant argues the claims on appeal are directed to a
combine tire. The Appellant argues “a person skilled in the art would appreciate
that wet conditions are not a consideration for combine service tire design” and

3 US 4,131,148 issued December 26, 1978.
4 US 2,113,527 issued April 5, 1938.
5 US 6,260,594 B1 issued July 17, 2001.
6 EP 1 172 234 A2 published January 16, 2002.
7 US 6,179,027 B1 issued January 30, 2001.
8 Appeal Brief dated December 10, 2009.
Appeal 2010-008861
Application 10/305,758

4

thus, “a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine the
references.” Br. 6-7.
The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As
correctly pointed out by the Examiner, the disclosure of Bertazzoli is not limited to
an R2 tire. Ans. 11-12, 13-14. We recognize that Bertazzoli, as well as the
remaining prior art of record, disclose tires that may be used on muddy or soft
ground. However, the motivation for combining the prior art does not have to be
the same as the Appellant’s motivation to establish obviousness. In re Kemps, 97
F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 420 (2007) (“any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time
of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed”).
The Examiner also correctly points out that the phrase “for use on
combines” recited in the preamble of the claims on appeal relates to an intended
use. Ans. 11. The Appellant has not directed us to any evidence demonstrating
that the modified Bertazzoli tire, which includes a lug width and a β angle as
recited in the appealed claims, could not be used on a combine.
In sum, the Appellant’s arguments and evidence9 reveal no factual or legal
error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the tire recited in the claims on appeal
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art
of record.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

9 Bonko Declarations dated August 18, 2008 and March 2, 2009.
Appeal 2010-008861
Application 10/305,758

5

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2011).

AFFIRMED
sld