Ex Parte Kuze

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 10, 2006

10113567 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TETSUYA KUZE
_____________
Appeal No. 2006-0190
Application No. 10/113,567
______________
HEARD: JANUARY 26, 2006
_______________
Before OWENS, WALTZ and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from a rejection of claims 1 and 3-5, which
are all of the pending claims.
THE INVENTION
The appellant claims a pneumatic tire comprising sipes
having walls with specified shapes and angles. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A pneumatic tire including multiple blocks formed
on a tread face and defined by and between a plurality of
main grooves extending in a circumferential direction of the
tire and by and between a plurality of sub grooves
intersecting the main grooves, in which zigzag sipes
Appeal No. 2006-0190
Application No. 10/113,567
2
extending in a width direction of the tire are provided on
and into surfaces of the blocks,
wherein the sipes are formed by shifting pitches of a
zigzag shape on a tread face side of the sipe and a zigzag
shape on a bottom side thereof in the width direction of the
tire,
and in the case of viewing concave and convex points
according to a visual direction E along the circumferential
direction of the tire, connecting a convex flexion point of
the zigzag shape on the tread side and a concave flexion
point of the zigzag shape on the bottom side which are
facing each other, a concave flexion point of the zigzag
shape on the tread side and a convex flexion point of the
zigzag shape on the bottom side which are facing each other,
and the convex points of the both zigzag shapes which are
adjacent to each other, severally with edge lines, and

interlinking the edge lines serially by planes in the
width direction of the tire,
wherein one of wall surfaces sectioned by the sipe is
formed into a concavo-convex face A in which convex
triangular pyramids and convex reverse triangular pyramids
are alternately arranged in the width direction of the tire,
and the other wall surface is formed into a concavo-convex
face B in which concave triangular pyramids and concave
reverse triangular pyramids are alternately arranged in the
width direction of the tire,
wherein a plurality of the concavo-convex faces A
sectioned to be adjacent by the sipes are disposed in each
of the two outermost positions in the circumferential
direction of the block to be oriented outward from the
block, and
Appeal No. 2006-0190
Application No. 10/113,567
1 JP 6-48123, which the examiner optionally relied upon in
the final rejection (page 3) as an alternative to Kleinhoff, is
not included in the statement of the rejection in the examiner’s
answer. Hence, we consider the examiner’s reliance upon
JP 6-48123 to be withdrawn.
3
wherein angles of inclination of the edge lines, which
severally connect the convex flexion points and the concave
flexion points between the zigzag shapes on the tread face
side and the bottom side facing one another, with respect to
a direction of diameter of the tire are set in a range from
10o to 35o when the edge lines are projected onto a plane
orthogonal to a direction extending from the sipe.
THE REFERENCES
Maük et al. (Maük) 4,566,514 Jan. 28, 1986
Kleinhoff et al. US 2002/0053383 A1 May 9, 2002
(Kleinhoff) (filed Mar. 24, 1999)
Katayama 6,427,737 Aug. 6, 2002
(filed Apr. 21, 1999)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellant regards as the invention, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Maük in view of Katayama and optionally
further in view of Kleinhoff.1
Appeal No. 2006-0190
Application No. 10/113,567
4
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner argues that “a plurality of the concavo-convex
faces A sectioned to be adjacent by the sipes” is ambiguous
because faces A (upward pointing combinations of triangular faces
in figure 2A) are not adjacent but, rather, are separated by
faces B (downward pointing combinations of triangular faces in
figure 2A) (answer, pages 3-4).
To be adjacent, faces A need not be in direct contact. See
Free Motion Fitness Inc. v. Cybex Int’l Inc., 423 F.3d 1343,
1348, 76 USPQ2d 1432, 1436-37 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Regardless,
faces A in the appellant’s figure 2A are in contact with other
faces A at their lower corners even though their upper portions
are separated by faces B.
Thus, the faces A are adjacent. Consequently, we reverse
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The appellant’s claims require that angle 2 in figure 2A is
10-35º.
Maük discloses a tire comprising sections 10 and 11 in
figures 3 and 6 having an angle with one another of approximately
Appeal No. 2006-0190
Application No. 10/113,567
5
30-100º formed by twist about a radial axis shown at 12 in those
figures (col. 2, line 68; col. 3, lines 33-35). Also, “sections
10 and 11 are both inclined at approximately 45º to the
circumferential direction of the tire, yet rise in opposite
directions, with one rising to the left and the other to the
right” (col. 3, lines 1-4). The 45º angle is shown in figure
4 which is a cross-sectional view of figure 3 (col. 1, line 53).
The examiner argues that Maük’s figure 4 “reasonably conveys
inclining the sidewall of the slit at a relatively small acute
angle with respect to the radial axis” (answer, page 10), and
that “Mauk et al is not limited to sections 10 and 11 being both
inclined at approximately 45 degrees to the circumferential
direction for the simple reason that Mauk et al describes and
claims a broad range of 30 to 100 degrees for the twist angle”
(answer, pages 15-16).
The angle shown at 12 in Maük’s figures 3 and 6 formed by
twist about a radial axis is a different angle than the 45º angle
in the circumferential direction shown in Maük’s figure 4. The
examiner has not provided evidence or reasoning which shows that
Appeal No. 2006-0190
Application No. 10/113,567
6
Maük’s disclosure of angles in figures 3 and 6 below 45º formed
by twist about the radial axis would have fairly suggested, to
one of ordinary skill in the art, reducing the circumferential
direction angle in figure 4.
The examiner does not rely upon Katayama or Kleinhoff for
any disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in
Maük.
We therefore conclude that the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness of the appellant’s claimed
invention.
Appeal No. 2006-0190
Application No. 10/113,567
7
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Maük in view of
Katayama and optionally further in view of Kleinhoff, are
reversed.
REVERSED

TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TJO/hh
Appeal No. 2006-0190
Application No. 10/113,567
8
DAVID T. NIKAIDO
RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC
1233 20TH STREET, N.W.
STE. 501
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036