Ex Parte Himuro

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2004

08997368 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte YASUO HIMURO
____________
Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before GARRIS, WALTZ, and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the refusal of the
Examiner to allow claims 1-10 as amended subsequent to the final
rejection. These are all of the claims in the application.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a pneumatic radial
tire for all-season passenger cars. With reference to the drawing
of the subject application, the tire comprises steeply slant
grooves 1, gently slant grooves 2, blocks 3 and sipes 6, wherein
blocks formed in the central zone TC are defined by circumferential
center groove 4 and steeply slant grooves 1 and are chamfered from
Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
2
a tapered top end over a range of 10-30 mm in a longitudinal
direction of the block so as to gradually shallow a depth of a
surface of the block from the tapered top end toward an opposite
end of the block. This appealed subject matter is adequately
illustrated by independent claim 1 which reads as follows:
1. In a pneumatic radial tire for all-season passenger car
comprising; a tread with a tread pattern defined by dividing the
tread into many blocks through a plurality of slant grooves
arranged at given intervals in a circumferential direction of the
tire and at least one circumferential center groove extending in
the circumferential direction of the tire at a center portion of
the pattern, and consisting of a central zone having a width
corresponding to 30-60% of a tread width and a pair of side zones
located on both sides of the central zone; wherein
(1) the slant grooves comprise steeply slant grooves extending
at a relatively small inclination angle with respect to the
circumferential direction and gently slant grooves extending at
a relatively large inclination angle with respect to the
circumferential direction;
(2) the steeply slant grooves are opened to the circumferential
center groove in the central zone of the tread, while the gently
slant grooves are opened to a tread end in each of said side zones
of the tread to form blocks in said side zones;
(3) the number of the gently slant grooves is made two or
more times than the number of the steeply slant grooves so
that an interval between the gently slant grooves in the
circumferential direction is made 1/2 or less than an interval
between the steeply slant grooves in the circumferential direction;
(4) each of the blocks is provided with at least one sipe; and
(5) blocks formed in the central zone are defined by the
circumferential center groove and the steeply slant grooves and
are chamfered from a tapered top end over a range of 10-30 mm in a
longitudinal direction of the block so as to gradually shallow a
Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
1 Our understanding of these references is geared from the
English language translations thereof which are of record.
2 On page 4 of the brief, the Appellant indicates that the
appealed claims are grouped together and correspondingly that the
patentability of all claims can be assessed by considering the
patentability of the broadest claim, namely, independent claim 1.
It follows that, in our disposition of this appeal, we will focus
on appealed independent claim 1. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1999).
3
depth of a surface of the block from the tapered top end toward an
opposite end of the block.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner
as evidence of obviousness:
Europe ‘332 627,332 Dec. 7, 1994
Europe ‘718 705,718 Apr. 10, 1996
Japan ‘025 5-3190251 Dec. 3, 1993
Japan ‘215 6-402151 Feb. 15, 1994
Europe ‘685 688,685 Dec. 27, 1995
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over EP ‘332 in view of EP ‘718
and JP ‘025 and optionally either EP ‘685 or JP ‘215.2
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a thorough discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
Appellant and by the Examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
3 We here observe that the Appellant in his brief and reply
brief describes the here claimed chamfer feature with terminology
which differs from the terminology which is used in the subject
specification including the appealed claims and which is used by
the Examiner in his answer. Like the Examiner, we
look with disfavor upon the Appellant’s use of terminology in
the brief and reply brief which is not consistent with the
terminology used in the specification and claims for the self
evident reason that such inconsistency pointlessly confounds the
record. In any event, we are confident that the chamfer feature
disclosed in EP ‘718 and JP ‘025 respectively corresponds to the
(continued...)
4
OPINION
We adopt as our own the findings of fact, conclusions of law
and rebuttals to argument expressed by the Examiner in his well
reasoned answer. We add the following comments for emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner that the Appellant’s independent
claim distinguishes over EP ‘332 only by the requirement that
certain blocks be chamfered in accordance with the requirements of
clause (5). We also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious for one with an ordinary level of skill
in this art to provide the corresponding blocks of EP ‘332 with a
chamfer of the type and for the reasons taught by EP ‘718 and
JP ‘025. In this way, the so-modified tire of EP ‘332 would
possess the chamfer advantages expressly taught by EP ‘718 and
JP ‘025. The resulting tire would fully satisfy each of the
requirements defined by the independent claim before us.3
Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
3(...continued)
chamfer feature defined by appealed claim 1.
5
In support of his nonobviousness position, the Appellant
argues that the chamfer feature in the directional tire patterns of
EP ‘718 and JP ‘025 are not applicable to the non-directional tire
pattern shown in Figure 1 of EP ‘332. Concerning this matter, the
Appellant criticizes the Examiner by contending that “[n]ever once
does the Examiner face up to the fundamental recognition between
directional and non-directional tread patterns and differences in
construction that flow from those divisible tread patterns” (reply
brief, page 9). This criticism is inappropriate.
This is because the Examiner has repeatedly explained that
the EP ‘332 disclosure at lines 41-45 on page 10 describes a tread
pattern alternative (with respect to the pattern shown in Figure 1)
which is directional (i.e., like the patterns of EP ‘718 and
JP ‘025). See, for example, the last six lines in the paragraph
bridging pages 7 and 8 of the answer and the last three lines in
the paragraph bridging pages 15 and 16 of the answer. This finding
by the Examiner has not been even acknowledged much less
contested by the Appellant in the brief and reply brief. These
circumstances compel us to accept the Examiner’s finding as
factually correct. Moreover, as so accepted, the Examiner’s
Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
6
finding of a directional tread pattern disclosure in EP ‘332
completely vitiates the Appellant’s above noted argument and,
for this reason alone, renders it unpersuasive.
In addition to the foregoing, the Appellant argues that
appealed claim 1 requires at least one sipe on each of the blocks
of the here claimed tire including the blocks which are chamfered.
According to the Appellant, the applied prior art would not have
suggested providing each block of the EP ‘332 tire with at
least one sipe. As previously indicated, however, we share the
Examiner’s viewpoint that the claim 1 requirement at clause (4)
“each of the blocks is provided with at least one sipe” relates
to the blocks previously recited in clause (2) and not to the
blocks subsequently recited in clause (5). From our perspective,
the disclosures in the subject specification (e.g., see lines
21-24 on page 10) and drawing are consistent with the Examiner’s
interpretation (and inconsistent with the claim construction urged
by the Appellant). See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As so interpreted, the independent claim before us defines a
sipe feature which is met by the element 10a feature of the EP ‘332
tire. This is because the 10a “sipes” are provided in the blocks
located in the side zones as required by clauses (2) and (4) of the
Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
7
Appellant’s independent claim. The Appellant’s point that no sipes
are provided in the blocks located in the central zone of the EP
‘332 tire is simply irrelevant since claim 1 contains no such
requirement when properly interpreted as explained previously. In
any case, like the Examiner, we conclude that it would have been
obvious for an artisan to provide the central zone blocks of EP
‘332 with sipes for the reasons thoroughly expressed in the answer.
In summary, it is our ultimate determination that the Examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness which the
Appellant has not successfully rebutted with argument and/or
evidence of nonobviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, we hereby
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of all appealed claims as
being unpatentable over EP ‘332 in view of EP ‘718 and JP ‘025 and
optionally either EP ‘685 or JP ‘215.
Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
8
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BRG/jrg
Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
9
SUGHRUE MION ZINN MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA NW
WASHINGTON, DC 200373202