Ex Parte Sallaz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13995626 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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.
13/995,626 09/09/2013 Gilles Sallaz 338180-00616 3329
35161 7590 11/15/2017
DTrKTNSON WRIGHT PT T C EXAMINER
1825 Eye St., NW FISCHER, JUSTIN R
Suite 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GILLES SALLAZ, AGNES DEGEORGES,
ALAIN DOMINGO, and SEBASTIEN NOEL
Appeal 2017-001156
Application 13/995,626
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-001156
Application 13/995,626
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 3—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Claim 1 illustrates the invention:
1. A tire having a radial carcass reinforcement, having at
least one layer of reinforcing elements, said tire comprising a
crown reinforcement, which is itself covered radially with a
tread, said tread being joined to two beads via two sidewalls, at
least one layer of reinforcing elements of the radial carcass
reinforcement being anchored in each of the beads by an upturn
around a bead wire, said radial carcass reinforcement upturn
being reinforced by at least one stiffener comprising a layer of
reinforcing elements, at least the end of the radial carcass
reinforcement upturn being separated from the stiffener by at
least one layer of polymer blend, wherein the reinforcing
elements of at least one stiffener are non-wrapped metal cords
with saturated layers having at least two layers and wherein at
least one inner layer is sheathed with a layer consisting of a
polymer composition, having, in what is called the permeability
test, a flow rate of less than 5 cmVmin and wherein the modulus
of elasticity of the at least one layer of polymer blend in contact
with the carcass reinforcement upturn and separating the
stiffener from the end of the carcass reinforcement upturn is
greater than 4 MPa.
Appellants1 (App. Br. 6) request review of the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 3—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Miyazaki
(US 6,109,320, issued August 29, 2000), Izumi (JP 2007223516 A,
published September 6, 2007 and relying on an English Abstract), Harikae
(JP 2004036027 A, published February 5, 2004 and relying on an English
1 Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin and Michelin Recherche
et Technique S.A. are identified as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 3.
2
Appeal 2017-001156
Application 13/995,626
Abstract), and Imamiya (JP 2002363875 A, published December 18, 2002
and relying on an English Abstract).2 App. Br. 4; Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.3
Appellants presents arguments only for independent claim 1. See
generally App. Br. 5—12. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter before us for review on appeal. Claims
3—22 stand or fall with independent claim 1.
OPINION
Prior Art Rejection
We AFFIRM
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We
add the following for emphasis.
The claimed invention is directed to a tire comprising (1) at least one
layer of polymer blend, having a modulus of elasticity greater than 4 MPa,
separating a radial carcass reinforcement upturn from a stiffener and
(2) reinforcing cords of at least one stiffener that are non-wrapped metal
cords with saturated layers and having at least two layers and wherein at
least one inner layer is sheathed with a layer consisting of a polymer
2 The English Abstracts for the cited secondary references are ah dated May
15,2015.
3 For the purposes of this opinion, we adopt the Examiner’s rejection
statement as presented in the Answer in view of the cancellation of
dependent claim 2, which is consistent with Appellants’ statement of the
rejection to be reviewed on appeal. Ans. 2; App. Br. 4.
3
Appeal 2017-001156
Application 13/995,626
composition and wherein the reinforcing cords have a flow rate of less than
5 cm3/min, as measured by a permeability test.4
(1) Polymer Blend Separating Upturn from Stiffener
The Examiner finds Miyazaki discloses a pneumatic tire construction
comprising a hard rubber layer 9 or polymer blend arranged between the
turnup 6T of a carcass 6 and a filler or bead reinforcing layer 10 (stiffener)
formed with steel cords that differs from the claimed invention in that
Miyazaki does not disclose the modulus of elasticity for the hard rubber 9..
Final Act. 2; Miyazaki Figure 2, col. 4,11. 40-50, col 6,11. 7—68. As noted
by the Examiner, Miyazaki discloses the hard rubber layer has a JIS-A
hardness A1 of from 70 to 90 degrees, more preferably 80 to 90 degrees.
Final Act. 2; Miyazaki col. 6,11. 9—11. The Examiner finds Izumi discloses
as known to use rubber compositions in tire constructions having a hardness
of 80—95 degrees that also have a modulus of elasticity 15—30 MPa, which
are greater than 4 MPa. Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 3; Izumi Abstract. The
Examiner determines it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
use a rubber composition with a modulus greater than 4 MPa in Miyazaki
because Izumi demonstrates that Miyazaki’s compositions have the required
modulus of elasticity. Final Act. 3.
4 As recognized by the Examiner and Appellants, the Specification describes
the permeability test as a way to determine longitudinal permeability to air
of tested cords by measuring the volume of air passing through a test
specimen under constant pressure for a given time (flow rate) with the
purpose of demonstrating the effectiveness of a treatment of a cord (rubber
sheathing) for making it impermeable to air. Ans. 3; App. Br. 9—10; Spec.
1122, 26. That is, the permeability test determines a property of a cord
structure.
4
Appeal 2017-001156
Application 13/995,626
Appellants argue that the cited art does not teach a polymer blend that
is in contact with the carcass reinforcement upturn and separates the stiffener
from the end of the carcass reinforcement upturn as having a modulus of
elasticity greater than 4 MPa. App. Br. 5. According to Appellants, the
Examiner’s reliance on Izumi to establish that Miyazaki’s compositions have
the claimed property is a conclusory statement unsupported by any rationale
as to why one skilled in the art would use a composition having the claimed
modulus of elasticity. Id. at 6.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Ans. 2—3. Moreover, Iuchi (US
4,917,166, issued April 17, 1990) (not of record) indicates that in rubber
compositions used in tire constructions, a JIS hardness of 70°—90°
corresponds to an elasticity of 100-150 kg/cm2 (9.8—14.7 MPa), which is
greater than 4 MPa. Iuchi col. 8,11. 38-41. Therefore, it appears that the
Examiner is factually correct that the rubber composition of Miyazaki has a
modulus of elasticity greater than 4 MPa. Appellants have not adequately
distinguished the claimed composition from the composition of the cited art.
(2) Properties of the Steel Cords in Stiffener
The Examiner finds Miyazaki discloses the use of steel cords to form
a filler or bead reinforcing layer 10 (stiffener) but does not disclose the
properties or characteristics of the steel cords used in the stiffener. Final Act.
3; Miyazaki Figure 2. The Examiner finds both Harikae and Imamiya teach
the manufacture of two layer steel cords for tire constructions where the
cords comprise an inner core filaments sheathed with an unvulcanized
5
Appeal 2017-001156
Application 13/995,626
rubber layer that improves corrosion resistance and fatigue resistance. Final
Act. 3; Harikae Abstract; Imamiya Abstract. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the stiffener of
Miyazaki with the reinforcing elements taught by Harikae and Imamiya to
arrive to the claimed invention. Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue the cited art does not teach the claimed reinforcing
cords with a structure that has a flow rate of less than 5 cm3/min, as
measured by a permeability test. App. Br. 7, 9. According to Appellants,
the Specification discloses that the presence of a stiffener consisting of non-
wrapped cords with saturated layers and having a flow rate of less than 5
cm3/min makes it possible to limit the risks of cracks appearing in the
polymer blends at the ends of the stiffener that prevents degradation of the
mechanical properties of the cords. App. Br. 9, 11—12; Spec. Ull, 22, 32,
33, 37—39. Appellants argue the similar structures of Harikae and Imamiya
are not disclosed as having a nexus with the concepts of corrosion/fatigue as
disclosed in. Appellants’ Specification. App. Br. 11—12; Spec. H 11, 22, 32,
33, 37—39; Harikae Figure 1(b); Imamiya Figure 3.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments as well for the reasons
presented by the Examiner. Ans. 3^4. As explained above, the Examiner
provided a reasonable basis for using the reinforcing cords of Harikae or
Imamiya in the tire construction of Miyazaki, namely to improve corrosion
resistance and fatigue resistance. Final Act. 2—3. Although Appellants
argue the similar structures of Harikae and Imamiya are not disclosed as
having a nexus with the concepts of corrosion/fatigue (App. Br. 11—12), both
Harikae and Imamiya in fact disclose that their respective composite steel
cord improves fatigue resistance and prevents corrosion of the cord by filling
6
Appeal 2017-001156
Application 13/995,626
of center portion with rubber or covering at least one filament with an
unvulcanized rubber. Harikae Abstract, Figure 1(b); Imamiya Abstract,
Figure 3. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable
expectation that the steel cords of the secondary references would have been
suitable for the tire construction of Miyazaki for the reasons disclosed by the
secondary references. In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.”). Further, given that the reinforcing cord structures
of the cited art are substantially the same as the structure of the claimed
reinforcing cord, the burden of proof is properly shifted to Appellants to
prove that the prior art reinforcing cord does not inherently or necessarily
possess the characteristics (flow rate) attributed to the claimed reinforcing
cord. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, (CCPA 1977). Appellants
direct us to no evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the
claimed reinforcing cords and the prior art reinforcing cords.
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1
and 3—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1 and 3—22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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).
AFFIRMED
7