Ex Parte Katayama

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2002

09110876 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2002)

1 The examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn (see
footnote at page 2, in answer).
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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MASAHIRO KATAYAMA
_____________
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application 09/110,876
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, WALTZ and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3-7
and 9-14. Claims 2 and 8, the other claims remaining the present
application, have been indicated as allowable by the examiner.1
Claims 1 and 5 are illustrative and a copy of these claims
is appended to this decision.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
2
Boileau 3,707,177 Dec. 26, 1972
Lagnier 4,994,126 Feb. 19, 1991
Sugata et al. (JP ‘604) JP 04-212,604 Aug. 04, 1992
Yasuo (JP ‘514) JP 08-207,514 Aug. 13, 1996
Kurokawa (JP ‘419) JP 08-244,419 Sep. 24, 1996
Beckmann (EP ‘230) EP 664,230 Jul. 26, 1995
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a pneumatic
tire having a plurality of block-shaped land portions having at
least four sipings, or incisions therein. The sipings comprise
first and second linear portions which extend in a direction
perpendicular to the surface of the land portion as well as a
line portion which connects the first and second linear portions.
According to appellant “[t]he invention is directed to an
improvement of a block-type pattern by optimizing the sipes
themselves to improve dynamic performance of the tire in wet and
ice conditions yet at the same time minimizing irregular wear
which is characteristic of the prior art” (page 2 of the brief,
penultimate paragraph).
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
(1) Claims 1, 3, 4, 12 and 13 over EP ‘230 in view of
Lagnier and either JP ‘604 or JP ‘514;
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
3
(2) Claims 5, 9 and 10 over JP ‘604 in view of Boileau;
(3) Claims 6, 7 and 11 over JP ‘604 in view of Boileau and
EP ‘230; and
(4) Claim 14 over JP ‘419 in view of JP ‘514.
Appellant submits at page 5 of the principal brief that
“[f]or each of the rejections, the claims as grouped by the
Examiner stand together.” Accordingly, the following groups of
claims stand or fall together: I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 12 and 13;
II. Claims 5, 9 and 10; III. Claims 6, 7 and 11; IV. Claim 14.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability, as well as the specification data relied upon
in support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior
art, as well as his cogent and thorough disposition of the
arguments raised by appellant. Accordingly, we will adopt the
examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejection of
record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3,
4, 12 and 13 under § 103 over EP ‘230 in view of Lagnier and
either JP ‘604 or JP ‘514.
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
4
There is apparently no dispute that EP ‘230 discloses a
pneumatic tire having block-shaped land portions having
incisions, or sipings, within the land portions, with the
incisions having the claimed first and second linear portions and
sloping land portion which connects the first and second linear
portions. It is appellant’s contention that the incisions of
Figure 5 of EP ‘230 are different in configuration from the
claimed arrangement inasmuch as appellant finds the sipes as
having three components. We agree with the examiner, however,
that although the sipes of EP ‘230 comprise two branches which
stem off the initial incision, the appealed claims do not
preclude the branching configuration depicted by EP ‘230. For
instance, claim 1 only requires that the sipings have first and
second linear portions which extend in a direction perpendicular
to the surface of the land portion and a sloping land portion
which connects the first and second linear portions. Manifestly,
the incisions of EP ‘230 meet these claim requirements and
appellant does not argue otherwise.
Appellant also contends that “the effect of suppressing
deformation cannot be reasonably achieved throughout the life of
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
5
the tire” disclosed by EP ‘230 or Lagnier (page 8 of principal
brief, penultimate paragraph). Appellant has attached Appendix C
to the brief to support this argument. However, the graph of
Appendix C has not been submitted in declaration form and,
therefore, is of little probative value. Furthermore, inasmuch
as the appealed claims do not preclude the sipe configuration of
EP ‘230, this argument is not germane to the claimed subject
matter.
We are also unpersuaded by appellant’s argument that EP ‘230
does not suggest the claimed at least four sipings. Appellant
focuses upon the 3 sipings depicted in Figure 5 of EP ‘230.
However, we concur with the examiner that the reference teaches
the use of a plurality of sipings and is not limited to the three
sipings exemplified in Figure 5. Significantly, the reference
establishes the number of sipings as a result effective variable
by disclosing that “[d]epending on the purpose of the tire, one
provides a larger or smaller number of fine incisions; for
example, for good snow traction, it is important to put a large
number of fine incisions in the thread strip” (page 2 of
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
6
translation, second paragraph). In addition, JP ‘604 and JP ‘514
evinces what is acknowledged by appellant, namely, that it was
known in the art at the time of filing the present application to
employ four sipings in the land portions of a pneumatic tire.
Appellant submits at page 10 of the principal brief that
comparative test data demonstrates the superiority of the
invention to tires which conform substantially to JP ‘604 and JP
‘514, which appellant characterizes as the closest prior art. We
agree with the examiner, however, that the comparative data is of
little probative value inasmuch as JP ‘604 and JP ‘514 have not
been established as the closest prior art. In our view, Figure 5
of EP ‘230, which depicts sipings having first and second linear
portions connected by a sloping line portion, is closer prior art
than the sipings of JP ‘604 and JP ‘514. Also, appellant has not
refuted the examiner’s position that “[t]he evidence is not
commensurate in scope with the claims since the claims fail to
require unitary sipe configuration evenly spaced throughout the
block pattern in which the number of sipes does not change from a
new tire condition through various stages of wear” (page 19 of
answer, first paragraph).
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
7
In addition, appellant has provided scant analysis of the
specification data and has not established on this record that
the data would have been considered truly unexpected by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Concerning the examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 9 and 10
over JP ‘604 in view of Boileau, we concur with the examiner
that, since both JP ‘604 and Boileau are directed to pneumatic
tires having tread patterns for wintery, icy-snowy roads, it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the tread pattern of JP ‘604 such that the wall surface of
each block on a transverse groove side has a stepped
configuration in accordance with Boileau. As explained by the
examiner, “Boileau teaches that the variation in width of the
wall surfaces (i.e. the stepped configuration) provides the
relief elements with a relatively wide base so that they are less
fragile and so that as the tire wears it can be used as a summer
tire (can be driven comfortably in other than winter conditions
especially as wear of the tire increases). See column 1 of
Boileau.” (page 12 of answer, last two sentences). As for
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
8
appellant’s argument at page 11 of the principal brief that “the
artisan would recognize immediately that the two tread patterns
of the prior art [JP ‘604 and Boileau] are mutually exclusive
with each other” (second paragraph), we are in agreement with the
examiner’s rationale that “Boileau’s inclusion of both a block
pattern and a rib pattern in his disclosure suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art that Boileau’s teaching to use the
stepped configuration to obtain the desired high cut out
percentage is applicable to a wide variety of tread patterns
which like the tread pattern of Japanese ‘604 is to be used in
winter conditions.” (page 20 of answer, second paragraph).
Appellant has not explained why Boileau’s failure to depict a
tread pattern with a main groove along the circumferential
direction of the tire would have dissuaded one of ordinary skill
in the art to apply the stepped configuration to the wall surface
of the block portions of JP ‘604.
In the interest of avoiding redundancy, we will not further
comment on the examiner’s separate rejections of claims 6-8 and
11, and claim 14, which rejections we incorporate herein.
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
9
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, and the reasons
well-stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting
the appealed claims 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
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
10
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN,
MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
11
APPENDIX
Claims 1 and 5
1. A pneumatic tire provided with a tread divided into
a plurality of block-shaped land portions, the
periphery of each of said block-shaped land portions
being bordered by a plurality of main grooves extending
in the circumferential direction of said pneumatic
tire, and by a plurality of lug grooves extending in
the transverse direction of said pneumatic tire and
intersecting said main grooves, and each of said
block-shaped land portions having at least four sipings
aligned in a transverse direction each of said sipings
comprising:
a first linear portion which essentially extends
in a direction perpendicular to the surface of said
block-shaped land portion and contacts the tread
surface;
a second linear portion which essentially extends
in a direction perpendicular to the surface of said
block-shaped land portion and is separated from the
surface of said block-shaped land portion; and
a sloping line portion which connects said first
linear portion and said second linear portion and is
inclined in a direction towards a wall surface of said
block-shaped land portion, so as to define a step,
wherein a position of a center of said
sloping line portion is set to between 10% to 60% of
the siping depth measured from said tread surface.
Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
12
APPENDIX (CONT.)
5. A pneumatic tire provided with a tread divided into
a plurality of block-shaped land portions, the
periphery of each of said block-shaped land portions
being bordered by a plurality of main grooves extending
in the circumferential direction of said pneumatic
tire, and by a plurality of lug grooves extending in
the transverse direction of said pneumatic tire and
intersecting said main grooves, and each of said
block-shaped land portions having at least four sipings
aligned in a transverse direction, wherein:
a wall surface of each of said block-shaped land
portions on a lug groove side has a stepped
configuration defining a stepped portion and a base
portion of said block-shaped land portions is larger
than a tread portion of said block-shaped portions.