Ex Parte Georges et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2015

12339585 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FRANCOIS PIERRE CHARLES GERARD GEORGES,
JEAN-MICHEL ALPHONSE FERNAND GILLARD,
ROLAND WILLIBRORD KRIER, VINCENT BENOIT MATHONET, and
BERNARD ROBERT NICOLAS1
____________

Appeal 2013-004111
Application 12/339,585
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN and N. WHITNEY
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 21, which are all of
the claims pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The real party in interest is said to be Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of
Akron, Ohio. (Appeal Brief filed August 7, 2012 (“App. Br.”) at 3.)
2 Final Action mailed March 7, 2012 (“Final Act.”) at 2–7 and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed October 31, 2012 (“Ans.”) at 3–6.
Appeal 2013-004111
Application 12/339,585

2
The subject matter on appeal is directed to “a pneumatic tire comprising a
tread, a carcass, and a zigzag belt [reinforcing] structure interposed between the
carcass and the tread.” (Spec. 1, ¶ [003].) This zigzag belt reinforcing structure is
said to be:
formed of at least two layers of cords interwoven together from a strip
of rubber reinforced with one or more cords, wherein the strip forming
the zigzag belt structure is layed up in a first zigzag winding
extending from a first lateral belt edge to a second lateral belt edge in
a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W1 followed by a
second amplitude W2 in the opposite direction of said first amplitude.
The zigzag belt structure is additionally layed up in a second zigzag
winding extending from a first lateral belt edge to a second lateral belt
edge in a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W2 followed by
a second amplitude W1 in the opposite direction of said first
amplitude. [(Id.)]

The term “winding” is defined as “the pattern of the trip formed in a first
revolution of the strip around a tire building drum, tire or core.” (Spec. 4,
¶ [0023].) Figures 5A and 5B illustrate such first and second zigzag windings.

Figure 5A shows first zigzag strip winding 50 wherein a first amplitude designated
as W1 is followed by a second amplitude designated as W2 in opposite directions
Appeal 2013-004111
Application 12/339,585

3
from the centerplane, with W1 being greater than W2. (See also Spec. 8–9,
¶ [0045].) Figure 5B shows first zigzag strip winding 50 in the form of a dotted
line and second zigzag strip winding 52 in the form of a solid line, wherein second
zigzag winding 52 is defined by a first amplitude designated as W2 followed by a
second amplitude designated as W1 in opposite directions from the centerplane.
(See also Spec. 9, ¶ [0045].) “The second winding has been indexed a desired
distance from the first winding, and thus may abut (as shown), overlap or be
spaced apart.” (Id.) The zigzag belt structure includes “N zigzag waves per 1
drum revolution, wherein N is .25 or greater. N may also be an integer ≥ 1.”
(Spec. 10, ¶ [0048].)
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in representative claim 1,3
which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
1. A pneumatic tire comprising a tread, a carcass and a zigzag belt
structure interposed between the carcass and the tread, wherein the
zigzag belt structure is formed of at least two layers of cords
interwoven together from a strip of rubber reinforced with one or
more cords, wherein the strip forming the zigzag belt structure is
layed up in a first zigzag winding extending from a first lateral belt
edge to a second lateral belt edge in a zigzag wavelength having a first
amplitude W1 followed by a second amplitude W2 in the opposite
direction of said first amplitude, wherein the strip forming the zigzag
belt structure is layed up in a second zigzag winding extending from a
first lateral belt edge to a second lateral belt edge in a zigzag
wavelength having a first amplitude W2 followed by a second
amplitude W1 in the opposite direction of said first amplitude,
wherein the zigzag belt structure has N zigzag waves per winding
wherein N is < 1.

3 Appellants argue for reversal of the Examiner’s §103(a) rejections set forth in the
Final Rejection and the Answer based on the limitations of claim 1. (App. Br. 4–
6.) Appellants do not present any separate arguments for the limitations of the
remaining claims on appeal. (Id.) Therefore, we limit our discussion to claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2012).
Appeal 2013-004111
Application 12/339,585

4

(App. Br. 7 (emphasis added).)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1 through 8, 10 through 15, and 17 through 204 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Iseki 5
and Kobayashi;6 and
2. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Iseki, Kobayashi, and Ueyoko. 7 (Final Act. 2–6 and Ans. 3–
6.)

DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record in light of the arguments
advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we find that Appellants have not
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the collective
teachings of the applied prior art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
the subject matter recited in claims 1–8 and 10– 21 as required for a determination
of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Accordingly, we sustain

4 Although the Examiner inadvertently did not include claim 12 in the statement of
the rejection set forth in the Final Rejection and the Answer, it is apparent from the
body of the rejection that claim 12 is also rejected in this rejection. (Final Act. 5–6
and Ans. 7.) Indeed, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision finally
rejecting claims 1–8 and 10–21, which are all of the claims pending in the above-
identified application. (App. Br. 3.)
5 EP 0 501 782 A2 published in the name of Iseki et al. on September 2, 1992
(“Iseki”).
6 JP 2002-321506 A published in the name of Kobayashi et al. on November 5,
2002 (“Kobayashi”). Our reference to Kobayashi is to the corresponding English
translation of record.
7 US 2005/0056359 A1 published in the name of Ueyoko et al. on March 17, 2005
(“Ueyoko”).
Appeal 2013-004111
Application 12/339,585

5
the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of the above claims for the reasons set forth in
the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Iseki discloses a
pneumatic tire comprising a tread, a carcass and a zigzag belt structure interposed
between the carcass and the tread, wherein the zigzag belt structure is formed of at
least two layers of cords interwoven together from a strip of rubber reinforced with
one or more cords and wherein the strip forming the zigzag belt structure “is layed
up” in at least first and second zigzag windings between the edges of the belt as
required by claim 1. (Compare Ans. 4–5 with App. Br. 4–6.) Rather, Appellants
contend that Iseki’s Figure 10 relied upon by the Examiner does not describe or
suggest a first zigzag winding “in a zigzag wavelength having a first amplitude W1
followed by a second amplitude W2 in the opposite direction of the first
amplitude” and a second zigzag winding “in a zigzag wavelength having a first
amplitude W2 followed by a second amplitude W1 in the opposite direction of the
said first amplitude” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 5.) However, this contention
is not well taken.
As explained by the Examiner, Iseki’s Figure 10, like Appellants’ Figure 5B
discussed supra, depicts a first zigzag winding “in a zigzag wavelength having a
first amplitude W1 followed by a second amplitude W2 in the opposite direction of
the first amplitude” and a second zigzag winding “in a zigzag wavelength having a
first amplitude W2 followed by a second amplitude W1 in the opposite of the said
first amplitude” as recited in claim 1. (Ans. 9–10.) Although Appellants assert
that the alternate shifting pattern described at column 5, lines 32–37, of Iseki
indicates that its first and second windings depicted in Figure 10 involve a
“W1W2W1W2” arrangement, rather than a “W1W2W2W1” arrangement as
required by claim 1, they have not directed us to any part of the Specification or
Appeal 2013-004111
Application 12/339,585

6
claims, which defines W1 and W2 or W2 and W1 used to designate the claimed
first and second amplitudes of the first and second windings differently from W1
and W2 or W2 and W1 designations used by the Examiner in the context of the
first and second amplitudes of the first and second zigzag windings depicted in
Iseki’s Figure 10. (App. Br. 5.) Nor have Appellants proffered any evidence to
show that W1 and W2 have the art recognized meanings contrary to the
Examiner’s designation of W1 and W2 or W2 and W1in the context of the first and
second amplitudes of the first and second zigzag windings shown in Iseki’s Figure
10. (Id.)
Appellants also contend that Iseki does not teach “N < 1 wherein N is the
number of cycles per revolution” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 5) In this regard,
Appellants explain that:
N is related to alpha, and as N increases alpha increases. Iseki does
not mention the number of cycles, but states that the bias angle alpha
should be in the range of 10 to 80 degrees. (Col. 4, lines 28-30)
Depending upon the actual tire drum radius and width, as N
decreases below 1, the angle alpha becomes very small, typically
below 10 degrees. Applicant’s examples of N =1 (See Figures 9a-
9c) results in an alpha of 6.65 degrees. [(Id.)]

Appellants then conclude that “a person skilled in the art applying common sense
would not modify the Iseki reference to have an N less than 1 because it would
destroy the teaching in Iseki that the bias angle alpha should be in the range of 10
to 80 degrees.” (App. Br. 5–6.) However, we do not agree with this conclusion.
A found by the Examiner, Iseki teaches that a bias angle (alpha) “may be” in
the range of 10 to 80 degrees. (See Ans. 11 and Iseki, col. 4, ll. 28–31.)
Notwithstanding Appellants’ arguments to the contrary, Iseki does not teach that
its bias angle (alpha) must be limited to 10 to 80 degrees. (Id.) The Examiner also
found, and Appellants have not disputed, that:
Appeal 2013-004111
Application 12/339,585

7
Kobayashi teaches a bias angle [(alpha)] of 3 to 15 degrees ([0018],
this range overlaps with lower end of the angle range disclosed in
Iseki [showing that a bias angle of 3 to 9 degrees is equally useful as
the bias angle of 10 to 15 degrees included by Iseki in forming zigzag
windings for a zigzag belt structure]) and a resulting zigzag belt
winding showing an N less than 1[in the context of a pneumatic tire]
…. [(Compare Ans. 11 with App. Br. 5–6.)

Further, Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s finding that Kobayashi
teaches that the employment of such bias angle enhances the durability of the
resulting belt. (Compare Ans. 5 with App. Br. 4–6; see also Kobayashi 3,
¶ [0013].)
Given the above teachings, we find that Appellants have not identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the
art, armed with the knowledge reflected in the collective teachings of Iseki and
Kobayashi, would have been led to employ a bias angle (alpha) of 3 to 15 degrees
to provide zigzag belt windings having N less than 1, as taught by Kobayashi, to
form the reinforcing zigzag belt structure of the pneumatic tire taught by Iseki,
with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving belt durability.
Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1–8 and 10– 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).

ORDER
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1
through 8 and 10 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) is affirmed.

Appeal 2013-004111
Application 12/339,585

8
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

lp