Ex Parte Harikae et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

12282433 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
12/282,433 09/10/2008 Shinya Harikae 22356-00003-US1 1616
30678 7590 02/27/2017
POT STNFT T T PC
EXAMINER
(DC OFFICE)
1000 Louisiana Street
ENABLE, GEOFFREY L
Fifty-Third Floor
HOUSTON, TX 77002
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
DC-IPDocketing@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINYA HARIKAE and NORITAKA MORIOKA
Appeal 2015-005586
Application 12/282,433
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
LiLAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1—14, 18, and 21—25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 In our opinion below, we reference the Specification filed September 10,
2008 (Spec.), the Appeal Brief filed November 7, 2014 (Br.), and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed March 11, 2015 (Ans.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.
and Tokusen Industries Co., Ltd. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-005586
Application 12/282,433
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a method of manufacturing pneumatic tires.
Conventionally, pneumatic tires include belt-reinforcing layers including a
steel cord that is spirally and continuously wound around the circumference
of the tire. Spec. ]Hf 2-4. It was known in the art to control tire
characteristics such as wear resistance, high speed durability and steering
stability by changing the circumferential rigidity of the belt-reinforcing layer
in the width wise direction of the tire. Spec. | 5. It was also known in the art
to form the belt-reinforcing layer by shaping a steel cord with a shaping
device, winding the shaped steel cord around a reel to house it, transferring
the shaped-steel-cord-loaded reel on an unwinding device, and unwinding
the shaped steel cord from the reel to wind it about a belt-forming drum.
Spec. 1 6. Appellants dispense with the reel. Spec. 118. Appellants instead
shape the steel cord and wind the shaped steel cord onto the belt-forming
drum in one continuous process. Spec. 1 8. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
method of the claims:
1. In a method of manufacturing a pneumatic tire having
a belt-reinforcing layer in which a steel cord which is
continuously shaped in a helical manner or in a manner of a
two-dimensional wave is spirally wound in such a manner that
circumferential stiffness thereof varies in a widthwise direction
of the tire, the improvement when the belt-reinforcing layer is
formed comprising:
continuously shaping a steel cord in a helical manner or
in a manner of a two-dimensional wave with at least one of
amplitude and pitch of shaping of the steel cord varying in a
phased manner or in a continuous manner prior to winding of
the steel cord around a belt-forming drum; and
continuously winding the shaped steel cord around the
belt-forming drum spirally in a circumferential direction of the
2
Appeal 2015-005586
Application 12/282,433
drum in such a manner that circumferential stiffness of the belt-
reinforcing layer varies in the widthwise direction of the tire,
and
wherein the steel cord has a plurality of steel filaments
twisted with each other.
Br. 11 (formatting added).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18, 21, 23, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Niderost3;
B. The rejection of claims 3, 8, 11, 13, 22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Niderost in view of Kojima4;
C. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Niderost in view of Harikae5;
D. The rejection of claims 1—14, 18, and 21—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Iida6 in view of Morioka7; and
E. The rejection of claims 1—14, 18, and 21—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Kohno8 in view of Kojima.
OPINION
We sustain the rejections maintained by the Examiner for the reasons
the Examiner articulated in the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
3 Niderost, US 6,089,293, issued July 18, 2000.
4 Kojima, US 5,032,198, issued July 16, 1991.
5 Harikae, JP 2001—213117, published Aug. 7, 2001 (English abstract
provided).
6 Iida et al., JP 08—132821, published May 28, 1996 (as translated).
7 Morioka et al., US 2004/0250936 Al, published Dec. 16, 2004.
8 Kohno et al., US 5,271,445, issued Dec. 21, 1993.
3
Appeal 2015-005586
Application 12/282,433
Anticipation by Niderost
Appellants do not argue any claim apart from the others. Br. 5—6.
Thus, we select claim 1 as representative for addressing the issue on appeal.
Based on the findings within the rejection Appellants dispute, we state the
issue as: Have Appellants identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
finding that Niderost describes continuously shaping a steel cord in a helical
manner prior to winding the steel cord around a belt-forming drum as
required by claim 1 ?
Appellants have not identified such an error.
The Examiner finds that:
Niderost discloses a method of manufacturing a
pneumatic tire in which a plural filament steel cord is helically
shaped with varying amplitude or pitch (e.g. col. 3, lines 48-64;
figs. 1-3) just before spirally winding the cord such that the
stiffness of the belt reinforcing layer would vary in the
widthwise direction.
Ans. 2. To support the finding that helical shaping occurs just before
spirally winding, the Examiner points to the disclosure in Niderost of helical
shaping in final cabling unit (45). Id. Figure 4 of Niderost shows that final
cabling unit (45) is part of a continuous process culminating in the cord
being wound around tire carcass 49. According to the Examiner:
When the helical shaping is occurring in the final
cabling/twisting unit (45), the shaping in a helical manner and
twisting are occurring simultaneously, the claim at present
being sufficiently broad to include such processing. In other
words, helically shaping and twisting plural filaments
simultaneously to form the cord is shaping a steel cord (that has
plural filaments) in a helical manner. This anticipates claim 1.
Id.
4
Appeal 2015-005586
Application 12/282,433
Appellants urge that “the conclusion in the office action that
‘[sjhaping and twisting plural filaments simultaneously to form the cord is
shaping a steel cord in a helical manner’ is not a reasonable interpretation.”
Br. 5. This is because, according to Appellants, Niderost is concerned with
controlling the extension of cord by changing the distance between at least
one filament and the cord centerline (CCL) whereas Appellants’ method
controls the extension of cord by shaping the cord itself. Id.
But how extension is controlled is beside the point. The point is that
Niderost teaches a cabling/twisting process that helically shapes.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because the change in distance
created in Niderost’s process does not somehow negate the fact that
Niderost’s cabling/twisting process creates a helical shape.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18, 21, 23,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Niderost.
Obviousness over Niderost in view of either Kojima or Harikae
Appellants do not add any arguments directed to the Examiner’s
addition of Kojima and Harikae to support an obvious conclusion for further
dependent claims. Br. 7. Thus, Appellants have not identified a reversible
error with regard to those rejections. We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 8,
11, 13, 22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Niderost in
view of Kojima and sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Niderost in view of Harikae.
5
Appeal 2015-005586
Application 12/282,433
Obviousness over Iida in view of Morioka
Appellants do not argue any claims apart from the others. Br. 8. We
select claim 1 as representative for resolving the issue on appeal. The issue
is: Have Appellants identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding
that Iida’s method results in continuously shaping the cords with the
amplitude of shaping varying “prior to winding” as required by claim 1 ?
Appellants have not identified such an error. Appellants contend that
“to the extent, inherency is being relied upon by the examiner, the law is
well settled that the test for inherency is whether the claims read on the prior
art disclosure, not on what the references broadly teach.” Br. 6. But the
Examiner has pointed to specific portions of Iida describing a method of
winding with varying tension that changes the waviness and, thus, the
amplitude and pitch of the cord. Ans. 4—5. The Examiner also provided
technical reasoning supporting the finding that Iida’s disclosed process of
varying tension would act to change the shape of the cords in the area
immediately upstream of the drum upon which the cord strip is wound and,
thus, the resulting cord amplitude changes would occur prior to winding. Id.
Appellants do not convincingly explain why this finding is unreasonable.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1—14, 18, and 21—25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Iida in view of Morioka.
Obviousness over Kohno in view of Kojima
Appellants do not argue any claims apart from the others. Br. 9. We
select claim 1 as representative.
Appellants focus their arguments on the Examiner’s finding with
regard to Kohno. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants contend that “Kohno does
6
Appeal 2015-005586
Application 12/282,433
not suggest that the steel cord has a plurality of steel filaments twisted with
each other according to the present invention as recited in claim 1 ” and
Kohno teaches away from using twisted steel wires in their invention. Id.
But the Examiner finds Kohno describes using 1X5 steel cords that would
have been readily understood by the ordinary artisan as a cord with five steel
filaments twisted with each other. Ans. 9. Indeed, Kohno teaches using 1 X
5 steel cords in the invention of that patent. Kohno col. 6,11. 17—18. The
Examiner identifies other examples within Kohno that also support the
finding. Id. Appellants do not respond to the Examiner’s finding. No reply
brief was filed. A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
finding.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1—14, 18, and 21—25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kohno in view of Kojima.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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
7