Ex Parte Harding et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

11946087 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111946,087 11128/2007
27280 7590 09/21/2016
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
200 Innovation Way
AKRON, OH 44316-0001
Antony Harding
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.
DN2007-162-X01 8584
EXAMINER
KNABLE, GEOFFREY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/2112016 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 ANTONY HARDING, DAVID CHARLES WAGNER, ROBERT
CORNELIS VAN DE PAS, and LARRY LEE MERSHON
Appeal2015-002389
Application 11/946,087
Technology Center 1700
Before, PETER F. KRATZ, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 5-10, and 14--20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and REVERSE-IN-PART.
1 The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is identified as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-002389
Application 11/946,087
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
The claimed subject matter relates to a retreaded tire and a process for
retreading a pneumatic tire. Br. 11-12 (claims 1 and 9).
Claims 1 and 9 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and
are reproduced below from Appellants' Claims Appendix:
1. A retreaded tire having a carcass and a crown region,
the crown region comprising a belt reinforcement structure
located between the carcass and a tread, the retreaded tire
further comprising a layer of cushion located radially outward
of said carcass, and one or more reinforcement plies located
radially outward of the cushion layer, wherein the one or more
reinforcement plies is formed from a continuous strip of one or
more reinforcement cords in an elastomer which is wound from
one side of the crown to the other side, wherein the continuous
strip has a width wo and a height, wherein the one or more
reinforcement cords are centered in the strip in the direction of
the height.
9. A process for retreading a pneumatic tire, the process
comprising the steps of: ( 1) providing a tire to be retreaded, the
tire comprising a tread portion and a carcass, (2) removing the
tread from the carcass, (3) extruding a layer of cushion directly
onto the tire carcass; (4) forming a reinforcement layer over the
cushion layer by continuously winding a reinforced strip of
elastomer directly onto the cushion layer from one side of the
crown portion of the tire to the other side; wherein the
reinforced strip has one or more reinforcement cords, applying
a tread over said reinforcement layer, and vulcanizing the
assembly in a mold, thereby forming a retreaded tire.
Br. 11-12.
Maathuis et al.
Navaux
Hubbell
References
us 5,007,974
us 5,088,538
us 5,323,829
2
Apr. 16, 1991
Feb. 18, 1992
June 28, 1994
Appeal2015-002389
Application 11/946,087
Bibona et al. US 5,342,473
Majumdar et al. US 5,503,940
("Majumdar '940")
Dyer US 6,546,983 B 1
Vermaat US 2005/0194076 Al
Majumdar et al. US 2005/0211351 Al
("Majumdar")
Rejections
Aug.30, 1994
Apr. 2, 1996
Apr. 15, 2003
Sept. 8, 2005
Sept. 29, 2005
1. Claims 1, 7, 8, and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over, Vermaat. Final Action 3.2
2. Claims 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Majumdar in view of Bibona and Vermaat. Id. at 4.
3. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vermaat in view ofNavaux or Maathuis. Id.
4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Majumdar in view of Bi bona and Vermaat and further in view of Majumdar
'940. Id.
5. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Majumdar in view ofBibona and Vermaat and further in view ofNavaux or
Maathuis. Id. at 4--5.
6. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Majumdar in view of Bibona and Vermaat and further in
view of Dyer or Hubbell. Id. at 5---6. 3
2 Final Action dated February 20, 2014.
3 A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is withdrawn. Ans. 8.
3
Appeal2015-002389
Application 11/946,087
ANALYSIS
Tire Claims
Appellants' claims 1, 5-8, and 14--16 are directed to a retreaded tire.
Appellants' arguments are directed to independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 14--16. Appellants present no separate argument regarding dependent
claims 5-8, including claims 5 and 6, which are separately rejected. See Br.
5-10. As a consequence, dependent claims 5-8 stand or fall with claim 1,
and we confine our discussion to claims 1 and 14--16.
The Examiner determines that a retreaded tire, as recited in claim 1,
would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Vermaat. Final
Action 3. The Examiner finds that Vermaat discloses or renders obvious
reinforcement cords that are centered in a strip in the direction of the height,
as recited in claim 1. Id. (citing Vermaat Figs. 3 and 4--6). The Examiner
finds that the limitations of claims 14--16 are disclosed by Vermaat. Ans. 3-
4 (citing Vermaat i-fi-f 13, 85, Figs. 2, 7).
Regarding claim 1, Appellants point to Vermaat Figure 3 and argue
that "Vermaat's strip includes the cushion layer 53, and because the strip
includes the cushion layer, the strip does not have reinforcement cords that
are centered in the strip in the direction of the height." Br. 7-8 (citing
Vermaat i-fi-140, 41, 88, Figs. 3-6). Regarding claims 14--16, Appellants
argue that the claimed structure differs from V ermaat' s disclosed structure in
that the claimed structure has only a single layer of cushion, and Vermaat
has multiple cushion layers at the edges of the strips where they overlap one
another. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 14--16 based on the Examiner's findings of fact,
4
Appeal2015-002389
Application 11/946,087
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to Appellants' arguments, as expressed in
the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
The Examiner correctly finds that V ermaat discloses or suggests a
strip of one or more reinforcement cords in an elastomer, wherein the one or
more reinforcement cords are centered in the strip in the direction of the
height. This structure is disclosed by Vermaat Figures 3, 4 and 6. Vermaat
Figure 3 shows rubberized cord layer 54 in which a plurality of parallel
cords 46 are centered in the layer in the direction of its height. Vermaat,
i-f 88, Fig. 3. Vermaat Figure 4 shows rubberized cord layers 54 and 55
sandwiched between inner and outer cushion layers 52 and 53, which can
have the same thickness. Vermaat i-f 90, Fig. 4. Vermaat Figure 6 shows
layer-like cord ranges 57 sandwiched between layer-like cushion ranges 56,
which can have the same thickness. Vermaat i-fi-1 91, 92, Fig. 6. The
"centered" limitation of Appellants' claim 1 is expressly disclosed by
Vermaat as follows:
[T]he cord reinforced strips comprise a plurality of coplanar
cords embedded in the strips, the plane of the coplanar cords
being parallel to the plane of the strips, the distance from the
plane of the coplanar cords to an upper surface plane of the
strips being equal to the distance of the plane of the coplanar
cords to a lower surface plane of the strips.
Vermaat i-f 18; see also id. f 41 (same). Accordingly, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Vermaat discloses or renders
obvious the "centered" limitation of claim 1.
The Examiner is also correct in finding that Vermaat discloses the
limitations of claims 14--16. Appellants do not contest the Examiner's
finding that the winding patterns recited in claims 14--16 are disclosed by
Vermaat Figures 2 and 7 and paragraphs 13 and 85. Ans. 3--4. Instead,
5
Appeal2015-002389
Application 11/946,087
Appellants argue that, because Vermaat's strip includes a cushion layer, the
disclosed winding patterns will result in multiple cushion layers, instead of a
single cushion layer, as in Appellants' tires. Br. 8. We are not persuaded
that Appellants' argument supports patentability of claims 14--16. Each of
these claims depends from claim 1, which recites "a layer of cushion located
radially outward of said carcass" and uses the open-ended transitional word,
"comprising." Appellants do not persuade us that claim 1 excludes a tire
having multiple cushion layers.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejections of claims 1,
5-8, and 14--16.
Method Claims
Appellants' claims 9, 10, and 17-20 are directed to a process for
retreading a pneumatic tire. The claimed process requires, in step (3),
"extruding a layer of cushion directly onto the tire carcass," and in step (4),
"forming a reinforcement layer over the cushion layer by continuously
winding a reinforced strip of elastomer directly onto the cushion layer." Br.
11-12.
The Examiner finds that Majumdar discloses a process for retreading
a tire, including applying a cushion layer directly onto a tire carcass. Ans. 4
(citing Majumdar i-fi-1 9-11 ). The Examiner relies on Bibona to teach
extrusion as a method for applying a cushion layer onto a tire carcass. Id.
(citing Bibona 3 :40+ ). The Examiner relies on Vermaat to teach forming a
reinforcement layer over a cushion layer by continuously winding a
reinforced strip of elastomer directly onto the cushion layer. Id. at 4--5
(citing Vermaat, Figs. 2 and 7). The Examiner finds that combining
V ermaat' s reinforcement step with a retreading process as disclosed in
6
Appeal2015-002389
Application 11/946,087
ivfajumdar would have led to "expected and predictable results including
lowered production and storage costs and enhanced accuracy and automation
of the ply application as compared to full width cut ply application." Id. at 5
(citing Vermaat i-fi-148-51, 55).
Appellants argue that it would have made no sense to combine
Vermaat's strip with Majumdar's cushion layer because all of Vermaat's
strip embodiments have a built-in cushion layer. Br. 9-10. According to
Appellants, removal of Vermaat's cushion layer would involve an additional
step and applying Vermaat's strip to Majumdar's cushion layer would result
in unnecessary duplication of the cushion layer. Br. 10.
We are persuaded that the Examiner's rationale for combining the
teachings of Vermaat and Majumdar is not sufficient to establish prima facie
obviousness of Appellants' claimed process. More particularly, the
Examiner's rationale is not sufficient to establish obviousness of combining
a cushion layer extrusion step with a continuous strip winding step, as
recited in steps (3) and (4) of Appellants' claim 9.
Regarding a motivation to combine, the Examiner relies on
advantages disclosed in Vermaat, which pertain to the use of a continuous
wound strip instead of cut ply layers for forming a crown reinforcement
structure in a retreading process. Ans. 4--5, 12-13; Vermaat i-fi-125-27, 32,
48-50, 55, and 96-97. The Examiner asserts that these advantages would
have been expected, regardless of whether a cushion layer is included with
the wound strip. Ans. 13.
The Examiner's rationale does not sufficiently address the
combination of steps recited in Appellants' claim 9. Although the cited
advantages may have motivated an ordinary artisan to substitute a
7
Appeal2015-002389
Application 11/946,087
continuous wound strip for cut plies, these advantages do not sufficiently
establish a reason to combine a cushion layer extrusion step with a
continuous strip winding step, as recited in steps (3) and ( 4) of Appellants'
claim 9.
The Examiner additionally asserts that application of a cushion gum
bonding layer is part of the usual retreading process that would be retained
when using Vermaat's wound strip reinforcement. Ans. 11-12 (citing
Majumdar, Bibona, and Vermaat i-fi-1 51, 97). We are not convinced by this
additional rationale.
Vermaat discloses a retreading process, including removing old tread
by cutting through a cushion layer and then winding a continuous green
rubberized cord-comprising strip having a cushion layer onto the remaining
part of the cushion layer. Vermaat, i-fi-122, 45, 88, and 89. Majumdar
discloses a retreading process, including removing old tread and a portion of
the cured cushion layer and then applying an uncured, tacky, additional
rubber carcass cushion layer to the remaining portion of the cured cushion
layer. Majumdar i-fi-135, 79. Bibona discloses preparing a tire carcass for
retreading by extruding cushion gum onto a crown surface of the tire carcass
so that pre-cured tread can be bonded to the crown surface. Bibona, 1:8-12.
The Examiner does not explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in
the art would consider it necessary or beneficial to use both a cushion layer,
as disclosed in Majumdar or Bibona, and a cushion layer disclosed in
Vermaat, rather than simply replacing one cushion layer with the other.
The foregoing deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 are
not cured by the Examiner's findings or conclusions regarding dependent
claims 10 and 17-20 or the additional references cited against those claims.
8
Appeal2015-002389
Application 11/946,087
For all of the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of
claims 9, 10, and 17-20.
CONCLUSION OF LAW AND DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 5-8, and 14--16 is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 9, 10, and 17-20 is
reversed.
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-IN-PART and REVERSED-IN-PART
9