Ex Parte Klapp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2014

12829865 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WOLFGANG KLAPP and WOLFGANG BENDE
____________

Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before GEORGE C. BEST, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.

ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10–32, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.
The Invention
Appellants claim a bicycle tire with at least one reinforcement layer
that contains strength supports and is arranged between a carcass and tread

1 The real party in interest is Continental Aktiengesellschaft. App. Br. 6.
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

2
rubber, between the carcass layers below the tread rubber, and/or within the
tread rubber. Spec. 1:4–7. Claim 10, the only independent claim, is
representative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
10. Bicycle tire comprising:
a carcass;
a tread rubber;
one reinforcement layer in the tire, the one reinforcement layer
containing strength supports comprising multifilament threads
of more than 30 polyester/polyarylate filaments and having a
fineness of 200 to 950 dtex, the filaments being spun from
molten liquid-crystal polymer, arranged between the carcass
and the tread rubber and/or between carcass layers below the
tread rubber and/or within the tread rubber; and
the multifilament threads being present in the one reinforcement
layer as threads running parallel to one another and not
intersecting with a thread count of 130 to 480 threads per
10 cm.
The References
Paola 3,837,982 Sept. 24, 1974
Kazusa 4,649,979 Mar. 17, 1987
Howland US 2002/0074068 June 20, 2002
Loose (abstract) DE 2905136 A Aug. 21, 1980
Toyobo2 (abstract) JP 60028538 A Feb. 13, 1985
Miyamoto (abstract) JP 401060402 A Mar. 7, 1989

2 Both the Examiner and Appellants refer to this reference as Tyobo. We
use the name Toyobo for this reference because Toyobo is listed as the
patent-assignee in the translation of record.
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

3
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 10–12, 14–19, 27–29, 31, and 32 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Howland and further in view
of Toyobo and Loose;
2. Claims 27–29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Howland, Toyobo, and Loose, as applied to
claim 10, and further in view of Paola;
3. Claims 10–12, 14–19, 27–29, 31, and 32 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kazusa in view of Howland,
Toyobo, and Loose;
4. Claims 13, 20–26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kazusa, Howland, Toyobo, and Loose, as applied
to claims 10 and 11, and further in view of Miyamoto;
5. Claims 27–29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kazusa in view of Howland, Toyobo, and Loose, as
applied to claim 10, and further in view of Paola; and
6. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kazusa, Howland, Toyobo, Loose, and Miyamoto, as applied to claim
13, and further in view of Paola.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections of claims 10, 12–15, 17, 19, 27, 30, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the rejections of claims 11, 16, 18, 20–26, 28, and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

4
Rejection 1. The Examiner finally rejected claims 10–12, 14–19, 27–
29, 31, and 32 as obvious over Howland, in view of Toyobo and Loose.
Ans. 3–5.
Claims 10, 12, 14, and 15. Appellants argue only claim 10 and do not
present any separate arguments for the patentability of claims 12, 14, and 15.
We therefore limit our discussion to claim 10 and claims 12, 14, and 15
stand or fall with claim 10. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellants argue that a skilled artisan following the disclosure of
Howland would not have desired to use Vectran® for polyester/polyarylate
filaments because it is non-preferred due to its cost and the level of abrasion
it can cause. App. Br. 14–16.3
Howland is directed to fabric-based inserts and layers for use in tires,
including bicycle tires, in order to provide puncture resistance to the tire.
Howland ¶ 6. The Howland device can include a single layer or multiple
layers of fabric, which can be formed of a wide variety of materials,
including Vectran®, although Vectran®, which consists of fibers having a
tenacity of greater than 15 g/denier, is not preferred. See Ans. 3, 11.
Howland states “[p]referably, for low cost and low abrasion, the puncture
resistant layers comprise fibers having a tensile strength or tenacity of less
than about 15 g/denier.” Howland ¶ 6.

3 Appellants’ citation to Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm
Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) in support of their argument is
misplaced, as Takeda applies to the test for prima facie obviousness of new
chemical compounds. Id. at 1357 (“[I]n cases involving new chemical
compounds, it remains necessary to identify some reason that would have
led a chemist to modify a known compound in a particular manner to
establish prima facie obviousness of a new claimed compound.”).
Appellants agree that the present application is not directed to a new
chemical compound. Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

5
Howland’s description, however, is not limited to its preferred
embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed.
Cir. 1989); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek, 416
F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Instead, all disclosures therein must be
evaluated for what they would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966). As the Examiner
found, Ans. 11, Howland discloses constructing a puncture-resistant tire
layer out of Vectran®. Howland ¶ 27. In one embodiment, the Howland
device comprises a multifilament thread or multi-fiber strand bundle that can
be embedded within the tire body, i.e., not in contact with the tube, thereby
obviating the need for lower abrasion. Id.; Howland ¶ 26. Howland states,
in such an embodiment, “because [the] anti-puncture device 22 does not
contact inner surface 8 of the tire or any inner tubes within the tire, provision
of low-abrasion covering layers . . . is generally not necessary . . . .”
Howland ¶ 26. Thus, Howland would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, using Vectran® to construct a reinforcement layer
embedded within a tire body.
Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would not have looked to
Toyobo and Loose to modify Howland because Toyobo and Loose are
specific to certain tire constructions that are different than Howland’s
bicycle tire construction and use different materials to form their
reinforcement layers (or breakers). App. Br. 19–21. In other words,
Appellants argue that Toyobo and Loose are non-analogous art. To rely
upon a reference as a basis for rejection of Appellants’ claims, the reference
must either (1) be in the field of Appellants’ endeavor or (2) be reasonably
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

6
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Here, the Examiner properly relied on Toyobo and Loose. Appellants
argue that Toyobo and Loose do not teach or disclose bicycle tires. App. Br.
20–21. Even if Toyobo and Loose are not directed to bicycle tires—
Appellants rely upon attorney argument and have not pointed to evidence
indicating such is true—both references are reasonably pertinent to solving
the problem of protecting tires from puncture through the use of
reinforcement layers. Toyobo (abstract) describes a woven fabric suitable
for reinforcement of a radial tire carcass. Similarly, Loose (abstract)
discloses a fabric that provides protection, i.e., reinforcement, for tire
retread. Toyobo and Loose therefore address one of the problems already
known in constructing reinforcement layers/fabrics for protecting tires. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have looked to Toyobo
and Loose and similar references to solve this known problem.
Appellants argue that even if a skilled artisan had been motivated to
combine Howland, Toyobo, and Loose, the combination does not teach or
suggest the claimed subject matter. App. Br. 12–13. More specifically,
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection makes the conclusory
assertion that the Toyobo and Loose parameters are not material specific and
provide a general guide for manufacturing tire fabrics. Id. at 19.
The Examiner found that Howland expressly teaches multifilament
thread comprising a plurality of filaments and having a linear density or
fineness between approximately 110 and 550 dtex. Ans. 12 (citing Howland
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

7
¶¶ 34 and 37).4 Although Howland does not specifically describe the
makeup of its remaining reinforcing elements, we agree with the Examiner
that Howland’s multifilament strands necessarily have a thread count and
comprise a certain number of filaments, and that a skilled artisan would have
looked to additional references disclosing tire reinforcement layers to
determine the values conventionally associated with each parameter. Id. at
11. As the Examiner found, id., Toyobo and Loose provide examples of
such values and their disclosures are not material specific.
Toyobo (abstract) discloses a weft for woven fabric for tire
reinforcement and includes an example of a multifilament that consists of
19–50 monofilaments and has a total size of 50–300 denier (or a fineness of
about 55–330 dtex).
Loose (abstract) discloses a rubber tread strip for tires with 60–240
dtex filaments having a thread count of 25–45 threads/cm (or 250–450
threads/10 cm).
The Examiner relied on Toyobo and Loose for their respective
teachings of filament and thread count values that overlap the values recited
in claim 10. Ans. 11–12. Further, the Examiner relied on Howland’s
teaching of a fineness range (110–550 dtex) that overlaps the 200–950 dtex
fineness range recited in claim 10. Id. at 12.
A “prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges
of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” In re
Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Ormco Corp. v. Align
Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Even a slight overlap in

4 The Examiner made this finding for the first time in the Answer and
Appellants do not dispute the finding in their Reply. See Reply Br. 1–8.
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

8
range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. Peterson, 315 F.3d at
1329.
Because the Examiner correctly found that the filament, thread count
and fineness ranges disclosed in the combination of Howland, Toyobo, and
Loose overlap the claimed ranges and presumptively render them prima
facie obvious, the burden shifted to Appellants to show that the particular
claimed ranges are critical, e.g., achieve unexpected results relative to the
prior art ranges. Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330.
Appellants argue that the combination of features recited in claim 10
achieved surprising results, App. Br. 13, 22, but point to no evidence
indicating the criticality of the claimed ranges relative to the ranges
disclosed in Howland (fineness), Toyobo (filament number), and Loose
(thread count). Thus, Appellants have failed to meet their burden.
Appellants next argue that the question is not whether Howland would
have some reinforcing element parameters but whether Howland teaches or
suggests the specific combinations of features recited in Appellants’ claims.
App. Br. 22. We are not persuaded by this argument because “the test for
combining references is not what the individual references themselves
suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole
would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re McLaughlin, 443
F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 10, 12, 14, and 15.
Claims 11, 16, 18, 28, and 31. The Examiner asserts that “one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it
obvious to use a wide variety of filaments, including those having diameters
less than 40 microns [as required by claim 11].” Ans. 4. This is so, the
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

9
Examiner reasons, because “the claimed filament diameters are consistent
with those used in multifilament threads or strands.” Id. at 14.
The Examiner, however, has not provided evidence or technical
reasoning which shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
expected diameters less than 40 microns to be suitable for filaments used in
reinforcement layers for protecting tires. Nor has the Examiner pointed to
any reference that discloses or suggests the suitability of such diameters in
the art. The Examiner has provided mere speculation to that effect, and such
speculation is not a sufficient basis for a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); In re Sporck, 301
F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 11.
We likewise reverse the rejection of claims 16, 18, 28, and 31 because
each of these claims depends directly or indirectly from claim 11 and also
requires filaments having a diameter of less than 40 microns.
Claims 17 and 19. Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would not
modify Howland with the disclosure of Loose to arrive at the inventions of
claims 17 and 19, because the fabric disclosed by Loose is polyester and/or
polyamide, and there is no record support for applying Loose’s disclosure to
Howland. App. Br. 26.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. The Examiner’s rejection did
not rely on Loose’s disclosure of a specific fabric or thread type, but rather
Howland’s disclosure of Vectran® combined with Loose’s disclosure of
values for parameters associated with reinforcement layers conventionally
used in tires, including a thread count range that overlaps the range recited in
Appellants’ claims. See Ans. 11–12.
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

10
Appellants’ remaining arguments in support of patentability of claims
17 and 19 are the same as those made in support of patentability of claim 10.
See App. Br. 25–27. For the same reasons expressed in connection with
claim 10, Appellants’ arguments fail to show reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 17 and
19.
Claims 27, 29, and 32. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 27 and 29 admits that Toyobo does not teach Appellants’ recited
range and provides no supporting evidence that Toyobo’s disclosed 330 dtex
is “extremely close to the lower limit [350 dtex] of Appellant’s claimed
range.” App. Br. 32. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when a
claimed range and a prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such
that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same
properties. Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329 (citing Titanium Metals Corp. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Here, the Examiner properly found that Toyobo’s disclosed fineness
of 330 dtex, which is only 20 dtex below the lower limit of Appellants’
claimed range, is extremely close, such that a skilled artisan would have
expected them to have the same properties. Ans. 4-5. Howland’s analogous
disclosure, which teaches a fineness range of 110–550 dtex, supports the
Examiner’s finding. Thus, the burden shifted to Appellants to show that the
claimed 350–600 dtex fineness range is critical. As with claim 10,
Appellants have not made such a showing.
Appellants’ remaining arguments in support of patentability of claims
27 and 29 are the same as those made in support of patentability of claim 10.
See App. Br. 31–33. For the same reasons expressed in connection with
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

11
claim 10, Appellants’ arguments fail to show reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 27 and
29.
Appellants separately address claim 32, but Appellants’ arguments in
support of patentability of claim 32 are the same arguments made to support
the patentability of claims 27 and 29. App. Br. 39–41. For the same reasons
expressed in connection with claims 27 and 29, Appellants’ arguments fail
to show reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection of claim 32.
Rejection 2. The Examiner finally rejected claims 27–29, 31, and 32
as obvious over Howland, Toyobo, and Loose, as applied to claim 10, and in
view of Paola. Ans. 5–6.
Claims 27, 29, and 32. Appellants argue that the Examiner used
improper hindsight by looking to isolated portions of diverse disclosures,
because Paola is directed to a wire woven fabric that a skilled artisan would
not combine with Howland’s fabric-based insert(s). App. Br. 43. That is,
Appellants argue that Paola is non-analogous art.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Paola discloses a
fabric for reinforcing pneumatic tires composed, inter alia, of a
multifilament reinforcement thread with a fineness range from about 220–
440 dtex. Paola 1:13–16; 2:41–44. Thus, Paola, like Appellants’ invention,
addresses problems already known in constructing reinforcement
layers/fabrics for protecting tires. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably have looked to Paola and similar references to solve this known
problem.
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

12
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection does not establish that
that a skilled artisan would have arrived at the combination of features
recited in claims 27 and 29 from the combination of Howland, Toyobo,
Loose, and Paola. App. Br. 42. Appellants, however, do not dispute the
Examiner’s finding that “[i]t is extremely well known to form tire fabrics
with multifilament reinforcement elements having a wide range of linear
densities.” Ans. 5. Nor do Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding, id. at
14, that Paola discloses a fineness range (about 220–440 dtex) that overlaps
Appellants’ claimed range of 350–600 dtex.
Because the Examiner correctly found that the Howland and Paola
fineness ranges overlap the claimed fineness range and presumptively render
it prima facie obvious, the burden shifted to Appellants to show that the
claimed fineness range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art.
Again, Appellants have made no showing in this regard.
Appellants’ remaining arguments in support of patentability of claims
27 and 29 are the same as those made in support of patentability of claim 10
with respect to Rejection 1. See App. Br. 42. For the same reasons
expressed in connection with claim 10 for that rejection, Appellants’
arguments fail to show reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 27 and 29.
Appellants separately address claim 32, but Appellants’ arguments in
support of patentability of claim 32 are the same arguments made to support
the patentability of claims 27 and 29. App. Br. 48–50. For the same reasons
expressed in connection with claims 27 and 29, Appellants’ arguments fail
to show reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection of claim 32.
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

13
Claims 28 and 31. Because claims 28 and 31 depend directly and
indirectly from claim 11, respectively, and also require filaments having a
diameter of less than 40 microns, we reverse the rejection of claims 28 and
31 for the same reasons expressed in connection with the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11.
Rejection 3. The Examiner finally rejected claims 10–12, 14–19, 27–
29, 31, and 32 as obvious over Kazusa in view of Howland, Toyobo, and
Loose. Ans. 6–8.
Claims 10, 12, 14, and 15. With respect to the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 10, 12, 14, and 15 using Kazusa as a primary reference, Appellants
argue that there existed no motivation to combine Kazusa with Howland,
Toyobo, and Loose because Kazusa is dated prior to the development of
Vectran® and refers to the position of the break-down protection between
the carcass layers of a tire. App. Br. 52.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because, as the Examiner
found, Ans. 14, Kazusa expressly teaches an anti-puncture device embedded
in a tire construction that is directly analogous to the device of Howland.
See Kazusa 1:16–18; 59–68. Although Kazusa fails to suggest the use of
Vectran® (and pre-dates its development), the Examiner correctly found that
a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Kazusa’s disclosure of
Kevlar® and high strength/tenacity fabric to use any known high tenacity
fiber, including Vectran®, specifically because Howland recognizes
Kevlar® and Vectran® as alternatives when forming anti-puncture devices
embedded within a tire body. Ans. 15.
Appellants further argue that any modification of Kazusa would
involve the preferred embodiment of Howland. App. Br. 52. Appellants’
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

14
argument is not persuasive because, as previously explained, Howland’s
disclosure is not limited to its preferred embodiments.
Appellants’ remaining arguments are the same as those made in
support of patentability of claim 10 with respect to Rejection 1. See App.
Br. 53–61. For the same reasons expressed in connection with claim 10 for
that rejection, Appellants’ arguments fail to show reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection with Kazusa as a primary reference. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claims 10, 12, 14, and 15.
Claims 11, 16, 18, 28, and 31. We reverse the rejection of claims 11,
16, 18, 28, and 31 for the same reasons expressed in connection with the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims with respect to Rejection 1.
Claims 17 and 19. Appellants’ arguments in support of patentability
of claims 17 and 19 are the same as those previously made in support of
patentability of claims 17 and 19 with respect to Rejection 1 and claim 10
with respect to Rejection 3. See App. Br. 63–66. For the same reasons
expressed in connection with claims 17 and 19 for those rejections,
Appellants’ arguments fail to show reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 17 and 19. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claims 17 and 19.
Claims 27, 29, and 32. Appellants’ arguments in support of
patentability of claims 27 and 29 are the same as those previously made in
support of patentability of claims 27 and 29 with respect to Rejection 1 and
claim 10 with respect to Rejection 3. See App. Br. 70–72. For the same
reasons expressed in connection with claims 27, 29, and 10 for those
rejections, Appellants’ arguments fail to show reversible error in the
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

15
Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 27 and
29.
Appellants separately address claim 32, but Appellants’ arguments in
support of patentability of claim 32 are the same arguments made to support
the patentability of claims 27 and 29. App. Br. 77–80. For the same reasons
expressed in connection with claims 27 and 29, Appellants’ arguments fail
to show reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection of claim 32.
Rejection 4. The Examiner finally rejected claims 13, 20–26, and 30
as obvious over Kazusa, Howland, Toyobo, and Loose, as applied to claims
10 and 11, and further in view of Miyamoto. Ans. 8–9.
Claim 13. Appellants argue that Miyamoto does not overcome the
deficiencies in the disclosures of Kazusa, Howland, Toyobo, and Loose
because Miyamoto is directed to PLT and CVT (Passenger & Light Truck
Tires or Commercial Vehicle Tires), not bicycle tires. App. Br. 81. Thus, in
Appellants’ view, a skilled artisan would not have looked to Miyamoto’s
disclosed steel cord, which would cause many problems in a bicycle tire
construction. Id. In other words, Appellants argue that Miyamoto is non-
analogous art.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Miyamoto (abstract)
discloses a breaker to improve cut, i.e., puncture, resistance. Thus,
Miyamoto, like Appellants’ invention, addresses a problem already known
in constructing reinforcement layers/fabrics for protecting tires. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have looked to Miyamoto and
similar references to solve this known problem.
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

16
Appellants argue that Miyamoto’s breaker is composed of a mixed
fabric of aramide/nylon and, therefore, does not provide any teaching or
suggestion of polyester or molten liquid-crystal polyaromatic polyester as
claimed. App. Br. 81.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive, as the Examiner’s
rejection did not rely on Miyamoto’s disclosure of a specific fabric or thread
type. Rather, as discussed above, the Examiner relied on Miyamoto’s
teaching of the known construction of breaker plies combined with the
teachings of the other cited references. Ans. 15.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection does not address
Appellants’ claimed subject matter, which requires the arrangement of
multifilament threads at an angle of 40–50o to the tire circumferential
direction and crosswise to the multifilament threads of a fabric layer
beneath. App. Br. 81.
Appellants’ argument is not well taken, as the Examiner’s Rejection
specifically states that Miyamoto’s anti-puncture breaker includes “at least
one ply, wherein said at least one ply is formed of threads/yarns running
parallel to one another and inclined [i.e., arranged at an angle] between 20
and 50 degrees with respect to the tire circumferential direction.”
Final Office Action 7.
Appellants’ arguments fail to show reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 13.
Claims 20–26. Each of claims 20–26 depends directly or indirectly
from claim 11 and, therefore, requires filaments having a diameter of less
than 40 microns. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 20–26 for
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

17
the same reasons expressed in connection with the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 11 with respect to Rejection 1.
Claim 30. Appellants’ arguments in support of patentability of claim
30 are the same arguments made to support the patentability of claim 13
with respect to Rejection 4 (discussion of Miyamoto) and claims 10, 27, and
29 with respect to Rejection 3. App. Br. 86–90. For the same reasons
expressed in connection with claim 13 and claims 10, 27, and 29 for those
rejections, Appellants’ arguments fail to show reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 30.
Rejection 5. The Examiner finally rejected claims 27–29, 31, and 32
as obvious over Kazusa, Howland, Toyobo, and Loose, as applied to claim
10, and further in view of Paola. Ans. 9.
Claims 27, 29, and 32. Appellants’ arguments in support of
patentability of claims 27, 29, and 32 are the same arguments made to
support the patentability of claims 27, 29, and 32 with respect to Rejection 2
and claims 10, 27, 29, and 32 with respect to Rejection 3. App. Br. 90–92.
For the same reasons expressed in connection with claims 10, 27, 29, and 32
for those rejections, Appellants’ arguments fail to show reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 27,
29, and 32.
Claims 28 and 31. We reverse the rejection of claims 28 and 31 for
the same reasons expressed in connection with the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 11 with respect to Rejection 1.
Rejection 6. The Examiner finally rejected claim 30 as obvious over
Kazusa, Howland, Toyobo, Loose, and Miyamoto, as applied to claim 13,
and in further view of Paola. Ans. 10.
Appeal 2013-002264
Application 12/829,865

18
Appellants’ arguments in support of patentability of claim 30 are the
same arguments made to support the patentability of claim 10 with respect to
Rejection 1 and Rejection 3, and claim 13 with respect to Rejection 4.
App. Br. 99–101. For the same reasons expressed in connection with claims
10 and 13 for those rejections, Appellants’ arguments fail to show reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claim 30.
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 10, 12–15, 17, 19, 27, 29, 30, and
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 11, 16, 18, 28, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc