Ex Parte Kaes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2017

13181773 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 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.
13/181,773 07/13/2011 Christian Jean-Marie Kaes DN2010-188 5066
27280 7590 07/20/2017
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
200 Innovation Way
AKRON, OH 44316-0001
EXAMINER
FISCHER, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2017 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):
kathleen.swisher@goodyear.com
patents @ goodyear.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 CHRISTIAN JEAN-MARIE KAES, GARY ROBERT BURG,
NEIL PHILLIP STUBER, BRIAN RICHARD KOCH,
CHRISTOPHER DAVID DYRLUND, and
LAURENT LUIGI DOMENICO COLANTONIO
Appeal 2016-005199
Application 13/181,773
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 4—7 and 9 of Application
13/181,773 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 2—5 (April 17,
2015). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is identified as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005199
Application 13/181,773
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to automobile tires with
composite innerliners. Spec. 2. Claim 4 is representative of the pending
claims and is reproduced below with certain limitations relevant to the
following discussion in bold text:
4. A pneumatic runflat tire comprising: a tread, a carcass
structure comprising at least one carcass ply, two bead regions
each having a bead core, two sidewalls, each sidewall having an
upper sidewall portion that connects to the tread, wherein a
shoulder region is located at the intersection of the tread with a
respective upper sidewall, said sidewall further including an
insert located axially inward of the carcass ply, a belt structure
being located between the tread and the carcass, and an inner
liner formed of two zones, wherein in said first zone the
inner liner is comprised of a butyl rubber and is located
radially inward of the carcass structure extending from a first
shoulder region to a second shoulder underneath the crown
portion of the tire, and wherein in a second zone of the inner
liner is comprised of butyl rubber having a butyl
concentration less than the first zone, wherein the second
zone extends from the shoulder region to the bead core of the
tire.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 4—7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kaido et al. (US 5,851,323, iss. Dec. 22, 1998) (hereinafter
“Kaido”) in view of Galimberti et al. (US 2008/0185087 Al, pub. Aug. 7,
2008) (hereinafter “Galimberti”) and Gardner et al. (US 3,949,798, iss. Apr.
13, 1976) (hereinafter “Gardner”). Final Act. 2-4.
2
Appeal 2016-005199
Application 13/181,773
2. Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kaido in view of Michiels et al. (US 2012/0012238 Al, pub.
Jan. 19, 2012) (hereinafter “Michiels”) and Gardner. Id. at 4—5.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 4—7 and 9 as obvious over
Kaido in view of Galimberti and Gardner. Id. at 2-4. The Examiner found
that Kaido teaches an innerliner including film liner 7 (corresponding to
zone 1 of claim 4) and rubber liner 8 (corresponding to zone 2 of claim 4).
Id. at 2. The Examiner further found that Kaido teaches that film liner 7
may include butyl rubber at high concentrations. Id. Additionally, the
Examiner found that Kaido teaches making rubber liners of “any rubber
generally used ... in the past, specifically, for example, butyl rubber.” Id.
(citing Kaido 6:55—56).
The Examiner found that Galimberti teaches that one rubber used in
the past was an elastomeric composition comprising “preferably of from 15
phr [parts per hundred rubber] to 40 phr, of at least one butyl rubber.” Id.
(citing Galimberti 126).
In view of these and other findings, the Examiner determined claims
4—7 and 9 to be obvious. Appellants allege error in such rejection.
Appellants argue that Kaido teaches that the film liner 7 should have
an air permeation coefficient not exceeding 25 x 10'12 cc ■ cm/cm2 sec cm
Hg. Appeal Br. 7 (citing Kaido 6:43—47). Appellants further argue that
Kaido teaches that butyl rubber has an air permeation coefficient of 55 xlO'12
cc • cm/cm2 sec cm Hg — higher than that taught by Kaido. Id. at 8 (citing
Kaido 17:45—48). Accordingly, Appellants reason that a person of skill in
the art would not employ a significant concentration of butyl rubber in the
3
Appeal 2016-005199
Application 13/181,773
film liner (zone 1 of inner liner) as it would increase the air permeation
coefficient above that taught by Kaido and make the liner “unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose.” Id. at 8.
In response, the Examiner finds that Table 1-1 of Kaido teaches
“compositions having high butyl loadings in the film liner” and that “the
modified tire of Kaido in view of Galimberti would have a greater butyl
loading in the film liner as compared to respective rubber liner portions.”
Answer 3^4. This finding is unrebutted. Moreover, Appellants argument
suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art may not wish to use large
quantities of butyl rubber in either the film liner or rubber liner but do not
meaningfully address their relative concentrations.
Further, Appellants do not seek to resolve the apparent contradiction
between their argument regarding the permeability of butyl rubber to air and
statements in the Specification regarding its impermeability. See, e.g., Spec.
3^4 (“[t]he first zone 420 is preferably formed of an impermeable material
such as butyl, bromobutyl, and halobutyl rubber.” (emphasis added)).
Appellants also do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s stated rationale for
combining the teachings of Kaido with the teachings of Galimberti. Final
Act. 3; Ans. 3^4.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have failed to show error in the
Examiner’s determination that claims 4—7 and 9 are obvious.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 9 as obvious over
Kaido in view of Michiels and Gardner. Final Act. 4—5. Appellants argue
that these rejections should be reversed for substantially the same reasons as
Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants add a single conclusory sentence
directed to the rejection of claims 5 and 9 that is inadequate to present an
4
Appeal 2016-005199
Application 13/181,773
issue for appeal. Id.', 41 CFR § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“[a] statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim.”). Accordingly, Appellants have failed to
show error in regard to Rejection 2 for the reasons set forth with regard to
Rejection 1.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 4—7 and 9 as obvious are affirmed.
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
5