Ex Parte Ruffa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 26, 2002

09090225 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 26, 2002)

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

Paper No. 18

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANTHONY A. RUFFA
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225
____________
ON BRIEF
____________

Before PAK, LIEBERMAN, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the examiner’s final rejection of
claims 9, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21. Claims 1-8, 11-13, 17, and 18
have been withdrawn from consideration. Appellant states that
claim 20 has been restricted.1 Claim 10 has been cancelled.
The subject matter on appeal is represented by claims 9 and
21, set forth below:
9. A high-speed, puncture proof tire comprising:
a tire casing having a tread portion and a pair of
side wall portions, the tread and side wall portions
defining an annular space therewithin; and

1 On pages 3-4 of the brief, appellant objects to the restriction of claim 20.
However, because this is petitionable subject matter under 37 CFR § 1.181 (as stated
by the examiner on page 3 of the answer), and not appealable matter, we do not review
this issue. We also note that claim 20 is indicated as being cancelled in the
amendment filed on November 28, 2000.
Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225

2
at least one panel of film material resistant to shear
forces disposed within the annular space to the tire
casing, said panel being sealed lengthwise thereof to
define a plurality of small diameter pressurized tubes such
that adjacent tubes share a lengthwise seal, the tubes
being fabricated from a high density heat sealable
polyethylene film, each pressurized tube being further
sealed crosswise along the length of the tube to define at
least two puncture proof elongated compartments that
contain gas under pressure.

21. A high-speed, puncture proof tire comprising:
a tire casing having a tread portion and a pair of
side wall portions, the tread and side wall portions
defining an annular space therewithin; and
at least one panel of film material resistant to shear
forces disposed within the annular space of the tire
casing, said panel being sealed lengthwise thereof to
define a plurality of small diameter pressurized tubes such
that adjacent tubes share a lengthwise seal, each
pressurized tube being further sealed crosswise along the
length of the tube to define at least two puncture proof
elongated compartments that contain gas under pressure, the
tubes being bonded to the tire casing.

The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:

Lee 487,419 Dec. 6, 1892
Hibbert 1,643,848 Sept. 27, 1927
Conklin 2,142,962 Jan. 3, 1939
Wyman 4,310,042 Jan. 12, 1982

Claims 9, 14-16, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 37 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Conklin or Lee in view of
Hibbert, Gilbert, and Wyman.
Claims 9, 14-16, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225

3
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hibbert in view Conklin or Lee,
Gilbert, and Wyman.
For the reasons set forth in the brief, and below, we
reverse each of the above-noted rejections.

OPINION
At issue is whether the combination of applied references
teach or suggest a panel of film material being sealed length-
wise thereof to define a plurality of small diameter pressurized
tubes such that adjacent tubes share a lengthwise seal.

I. Claim Interpretation
The meaning of the phrase, “panel of film material being
sealed length-wise thereof to define a plurality of small
diameter pressurized tubes such that adjacent tubes share a
lengthwise seal”, is best defined with reference to Figure 4 of
appellant’s specification, reproduced below.

In Figure 4, there is panel 28 of a film material wherein
the panel is sealed lengthwise to define a plurality of small
diameter pressurized tubes 32 such that adjacent tubes 32 share
Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225

4
a lengthwise seal. Each pressurized tube 32 is further sealed
crosswise along the length of tube 32 at location 34 to define
at least two puncture proof elongated compartments 26 (as
depicted in Figure 3, see below) that contain gas under
pressure. Figure 3 shows tube 20 having a plurality of
compartments 26 that contain pressurized gas and that are sealed
at locations 24.

Given the above meaning of the aforementioned subject
matter, we turn now to the prior art rejections.

II. The Rejection of Claims 9, 14-16, 19, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Conklin or Lee, in
view of Hibbert, Gilbert, and Wyman

On page 7 of the answer, the examiner states that Hibbert
discloses a method of forming air-filled chambers for use in a
tire, wherein the chambers are formed via the use of two sheets
which are sealed lengthwise and crosswise to form spheres.
The examiner states that it would have obvious to form the
tubes of Lee or Conklin by the method of Hibbert, because using
sheets would make it easier to fill and pack the inside of the
tire, resulting in quicker packing of the tire.
Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225

5
We find that Hibbert discloses a method of forming air-
filled chambers. The chambers are formed by pressing together
two sheets, using a press provided with numerous hemi-spherical
cavities coinciding with one another when the press is closed,
to form spherical cavities, each filled with compressed air.
See lines 74-111, and Figure 1, of Hibbert. Because spheres are
formed in the manner as described by Hibbert, each sphere is
positioned next to another sphere in a manner that mirrors the
position of each item 4 shown in Figure 1. The examiner has not
explained how such positioning provides for chambers that are
sealed lengthwise and crosswise to form spheres, as concluded by
the examiner on page 7 of the answer. The examiner has not
explained how such positioning provides for a panel of film
material being sealed length-wise thereof to define a plurality
of small diameter pressurized spheres such that adjacent spheres
share a lengthwise seal.
Furthermore, the examiner’s incorporation of Hibbert’s
teachings into Conklin or Lee is not well founded for the
following reasons.
If one having ordinary skill in the art would begin with
the invention of Hibbert, one would have a sheet containing a
plurality of spherical cavities filled with compressed air (cell
bands). One would then have to have been motivated to substitute
this sheet of Hibbert for the tubular member(s) disclosed in
Conklin or Lee, discussed in further detail below. Still yet,
the examiner has not demonstrated that the substitution would
arrive at appellant’s claimed invention.
Figure 4 of Conklin shows that tubular body length 10
(which is depicted in Figure 2) is coiled at 14 upon wheel 15.
The coiling is carried forth until the coil is of a desired size
to fit within casing A shown in Figure 1. The examiner has not
Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225

6
explained how and why one of ordinary skill in the art would
coil the sheet of spherical cavities filled with compressed air
of Hibbert according to the method in Conklin, and arrive at
appellant’s claimed invention.
The examiner concludes it would have been obvious to form
the tubes of Conklin by the method of Hibbert since using sheets
would make it easier to fill and pack the inside of the tire
resulting in quicker packing of the tire. However, we find this
logic is not supported by the teachings of the references. We
note that the examiner has not explained why the references
themselves would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine their teachings as proposed by the examiner. See In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Lee forms an inflated tube, shown in Figure 1. Each tube
is compressed or indented at intervals, e.g., at b, b of Figure
1. A number of such individual inflated tubes are placed
together in the form a cable and an outer covering D is place
around the formed cable, for example, as shown in Figure 2. The
examiner has not explained how and why one of ordinary skill in
the art would place together sheets of a plurality of spherical
cavities filled with compressed air of Hibbert to form a cable
as set forth in Lee, to arrive at appellant’s claimed invention.
The examiner concludes it would have been obvious to form
the tubes of Lee by the method of Hibbert since using sheets
would make it easier to fill and pack the inside of the tire,
resulting in quicker packing of the tire. However, we find this
logic is not supported by the teachings of the references, and
again refer to the case of In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d at 1051, 189
USPQ at 147 (CCPA 1976).
In view of the above, we reverse this rejection.
Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225

7
We note that the examiner relies upon Wyman and Gilbert for
teaching the use of polyethylene as the material for use in
making tires. These references do not cure the deficiencies of
Conklin or Lee in view of Hibbert.

III. The Rejection of claims 9, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hibbert in view of Conklin or Lee, Gilbert, and Wyman

We determine that this rejection is more unfounded than the
above-discussed rejection, and we refer to appellant’s
statements made at pages 5-8 of the brief in support of this
determination, and incorporate these statements herein. We
provide the following for emphasis.
As mentioned, supra, Hibbert forms a sheet of a plurality
of spherical cavities 10 filled with compressed air, using a
press provided with numerous hemi-spherical cavities coinciding
with one another when the press is closed, to form spherical
cavities, each filled with compressed air. See lines 74-111,
and Figure 1, of Hibbert. Because spheres are formed in the
manner as described by Hibbert, each sphere is positioned next
to another sphere in a manner that mirrors the position of each
item 4 shown in Figure 1. The examiner has not explained how
such positioning provides for spheres that are sealed lengthwise
and crosswise to form spheres, as concluded by the examiner on
page 7 of the answer. The examiner has not explained how such
positioning provides for a panel of film material being sealed
length-wise thereof to define a plurality of small diameter
pressurized spheres such that adjacent spheres share a
lengthwise seal.
Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225

8
Furthermore, the examiner has not explained how and why one
of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the tubular
member(s) of Conklin or Lee into Hibbert to obtain a tire
comprising a panel of film material being sealed length-wise
thereof to define a plurality of small diameter pressurized
tubes such that adjacent tube share a lengthwise seal as
depicted in appellant’s Figure 4.
As noted by appellant on page 6 of the brief, Hibbert
deliberately has chosen spheres in order to form appropriately
sized interstices between the outer faces of the cells, which
are filled with a suitable thick solution and vulcanized to form
a compact rubber tire. The examiner does not explain why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
substitute the tubular member(s) of Conklin or Lee for the
spheres of Hibbert, especially in view of this disclosure of
Hibbert.
The examiner states that “there is no indication that the
cylinders could not be made to pack as tightly, i.e., by the
sealing area between the tubes being equal to the width and
length of the tubes”. (answer, page 9). We again note that the
examiner has not explained why the references themselves would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine their
teachings as proposed by the examiner. See In re Rinehart, 531
F. 2d at 1051, 189 USPQ at 147.
Here, the examiner’s unsupported logic leads us to conclude
that the examiner, in making his Section 103 rejection, has
fallen victim to the insidious effect of hindsight syndrome
wherein that which only the inventor has taught is used against
its teacher. W.L. Gore & Assocs. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225

9
We therefore reverse this rejection also.
We note that the examiner relies upon Wyman and Gilbert for
teaching the use of polyethylene as the material for use in
making tires. These references do not cure the deficiencies
Hibbert in view of Conklin or Lee.

IV. Conclusion
Each rejection is reversed.

REVERSED

CHUNG F. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
PAUL LIEBERMAN ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

SLD
Appeal No. 2002-0175
Application No. 09/090,225

10

OFFICE OF COUNSEL BLDG 112T
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFAR CENTER
DIVISION-NEWPORT
1176 HOWELL STREET
NEWPORT, RI 02841-1708