Ex Parte Fugier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

13821409 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 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.
13/821,409 03/29/2013 Sebastien Fugier 338180-00588 2094
35161 7590 12/18/2017
DTrKTNSON WRIGHT PT T C EXAMINER
1825 Eye St., NW HUG, JOHN ERIC
Suite 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEBASTIEN FUGIER, NICOLAS JAMOT, and
BERTRAND FRAENKEL
Appeal 2016-007937
Application 13/821,4091
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)2 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-3 in the above-identified application.3 We have
authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin and
Michelin Recherche et Technique S.A. as the real parties in interest. See
Appeal Br. 2, Jan. 4, 2016.
2 Appeal Br.; Reply Br., Aug. 1, 2016.
3 Final Office Action, Mar. 3, 2015 [hereinafter Final Action]; Examiner’s
Answer, May 31, 2016 [hereinafter Answer],
Appeal 2016-007937
Application 13/821,409
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention “relates to a tyre tread with an asymmetric tread
pattern design” intended for winter driving by passenger vehicles. Spec.4
11-
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative:
1. An asymmetric tread for a tire adapted to be fitted to a
motor vehicle in a predetermined direction of fitting,
comprising:
a tread surface adapted to be in contact with a
roadway when the tire is being driven, and comprising an in­
board half tread adjacent to an inboard sidewall of the tire and
an outboard half-tread adjacent to an outboard sidewall of the
tire;
a sequence of basic patterns arranged in the
circumferential direction (X), each basic pattern extending over
at least 80% of the width (W) of the tread;
each basic pattern comprising a plurality of raised
elements provided with sipes opening onto the tread surface,
each sipe having a width less than 1 mm and a depth of at least
3 mm;
wherein:
the following are defined for each basic pattern:
a sipes density (D) corresponding to
I"
i
P * Wm
where a\ is the number of sipes in the pattern, li is the length of
the ith sipe on the tread surface, P is the pitch of the basic
pattern and Wm is the width of the basic pattern;
4 Specification, Mar. 7, 2013 [hereinafter Spec.].
2
Appeal 2016-007937
Application 13/821,409
a sipes orientation level (NO) corresponding to
* ai\
i________
P * Wm ,
where ai is the positive or negative angle formed on the tread
surface by the ith sipe with the transverse direction and \ ai\ < 45
degrees',
a steering pull criterion for the basic pattern (CT)
corresponding to
Z"*a'
i
* ai\
i
wherein the sipes density (D) is greater than or equal to 60
pm/mm2, the sipes orientation level (NO) is greater than or
equal to 1.5 degrees/mm, and the steering pull criterion (CT) is
less than or equal to 0.2, and
wherein the sipes orientation level (NO) of the inboard half­
tread is greater than 2 degrees/mm, such that the sipes of the
inboard half-tread are inclined more steeply with respect to the
transverse direction than the sipes of the outboard half-tread.
Appeal Br. Claims App. 1-2 (emphasis of key phrase added).
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ohashi.5 See Final Action 2-5.
5 Ohashi, JP 2007-153056 (published June 21, 2007). Citations to text of
Ohashi are to the machine-generated translation of record.
3
Appeal 2016-007937
Application 13/821,409
DISCUSSION
The Examiner determines that Ohashi teaches an asymmetric tread for
a tire comprising sipes.6 Final Action 2. Figure 1 of Ohashi is reproduced
below:
Figure 1 is a diagram showing the tread pattern of a tire, with axis C
being the tire equator line. Ohashi ^ 14. The pattern has sipes 5 “extending
in the tire width direction,” and sipes 6 “extending obliquely with respect to
the tire direction.” Id. ^ 15. Sipes 6a extend from the upper left to the lower
right in the block row of the shoulder portion of the outside of the vehicle,
and sipes 6b extend in a reverse direction so as to be in a V-shaped
arrangement. Id. ^ 22.
6 Appellants define a sipe in a tire tread as “a cut-out of which the faces of
material touch under normal running conditions.” Spec. ^ 13.
4
Appeal 2016-007937
Application 13/821,409
The Examiner finds, based on the drawing, that “sipes (6) in the outer
tread portion of Figure 1 have a positive angle (6b) or negative angle (6a) of
about 45° with respect to the width direction.” Final Action 3. The
Examiner states as follows:
Paragraph [0022] of Ohashi (see machine translation) teaches
that the sipes (6) of Figure 1 extend obliquely, i.e., at an angle to
the widthwise and circumferential directions, and are arranged in
opposite directions. Advantages such as enhanced edge effect
and improved turning performance are disclosed. Based on this
teaching, one skilled in the art would recognize optimizing the
angle between 0° and 90° for at least the purpose of providing
the aforementioned advantages. The orientation angle of 45° used
in the rejection is merely a reasonable estimate based on how the
sipes are drawn relative to the widthwise direction, not based on
any express disclosure thereof, nor on any consideration or opti­
mization of the sipe orientation level or steering pull criterion.
Answer 5-6. The Examiner interprets paragraph 22 of Ohashi as a
recognition that the orientation angle of the sipe is recognized as a result-
effective variable. Id. at 6.
Appellants argue that Ohashi does not refer to the sipe angle or give
any indication that it, or the NO or CT values that rely on the sipe angle ai,
are result-effective. See Appeal Br. 5-6. Regarding paragraph 22 of Ohashi,
Appellants argue that the recited advantages which the Examiner attributes
to the sipe angle are not actually related to the value of the sipe angle, and
the Examiner has provided “no discussion as a nexus between an angle, and
changing/modifying said angle to an amount provided in the claims.” Reply
Br. 2.7 Appellants also argue that the Examiner improperly derived an
7 Appellants also cite a passage relating to sipe density that does not appear
to be paragraph 22 of Ohashi. Reply Br. 2. The cited passage bears no
5
Appeal 2016-007937
Application 13/821,409
estimated numerical angle of 45° from the Ohashi figure, which is not
necessarily drawn to scale. Appeal Br. 6-7.
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. An angle of 45° is at the
extreme upper end of the range recited in claim 1, and Ohashi does not
disclose that the x and y axes in Figure 1 are scaled equally, or that the
angles and feature sizes are drawn to scale. Thus, the Examiner has not
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood Figure 1 to teach a sipe orientation angle
within the range of (M15°, inclusive. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v.
Avia Group Inti, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[I]t is well established
that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements
and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is
completely silent on the issue.”)
In addition, while paragraph 22 of Ohashi discusses an advantage in
arranging sipes 6a and 6b in a V-shaped pattern, Ohashi does not teach that
the numerical value of the angle is result-effective. Moreover, the Examiner
has not provided any persuasive rationale for why a person of ordinary skill
in the art, in view of Ohashi, would have optimized the numerical value of
this angle.
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Because the Examiner’s other findings and conclusions with respect to
dependent claims 2 and 3 do not cure this error, we also reverse the rejection
of claims 2 and 3.
relation to the sipe orientation angle, and therefore does not support the
Examiner’s rejection.
6
Appeal 2016-007937
Application 13/821,409
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7