Ex Parte Weaver et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201813585904 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/585,904 08/15/2012 Douglas Raymond Weaver 27280 7590 11/02/2018 THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 200 Innovation Way AKRON, OH 44316-0001 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. DN2012-092 7104 EXAMINER WILSON, MICHAEL H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2018 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): kathleen.swisher@goodyear.com patents@ good year.com pair_goodyear@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DOUGLAS RAYMOND WEA VER and LAWRENCE DEAN SHULL Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-9. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appellants' invention is directed to a tire building drum without a center sleeve (Spec. ,r 1 ). 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company" (Br. 3). Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 Claims 1, 8, and 9 are illustrative ( emphasis added): 1. A tire building drum comprising: a rotatable drum having a first and second shoulder section and a center section positioned therebetween, each shoulder section having a bead lock mechanism, wherein the center section has a first axially outer end forming a first shoulder and a second axially outer end forming a second shoulder, and wherein the center section extends between the first axially outer end and the second axially outer end, wherein said center section is not covered by a sleeve that extends from the first axially outer end to the second axially outer end of the center section, wherein a first shoulder seal is mounted on the first shoulder and a second shoulder seal is mounted on the second shoulder, wherein each shoulder seal has a first end received in a clamp and a second portion that extends over its respective shoulder of the center section terminating in a free end, wherein each free end is located axially between the clamps. 8. A tire building drum comprising: a rotatable drum having a first and second section, each section having a bead lock mechanism, said rotatable drum further comprising a radially expandable center section positioned between the bead lock mechanisms, wherein the center section has a first axially outer end forming a first shoulder and a second axially outer end forming a second shoulder, and wherein a first shoulder seal is located on the first shoulder and a second shoulder seal is located on the second shoulder, wherein each shoulder seal has a free end that extends over its respective shoulder towards an axial midpoint of the center section, but does not extend past the axial midpoint, and a fixed end that is located axially inward of its nearest one of the bead lock mechanism, and wherein there is no rubber seal located between the free end of the first shoulder seal and the free end of the second shoulder seal. 9. A tire building drum comprising: a rotatable drum having a first and second shoulder section and a center section positioned therebetween, each shoulder section having a bead lock mechanism, wherein the center section has a first axially outer end forming a first shoulder and a second axially outer 2 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 end forming a second shoulder, and wherein the center section extends between the first axially outer end and the second axially outer end, wherein said center section is not covered by a sleeve which covers the axial middle of the center section, wherein a first shoulder seal is mounted on the first shoulder and a second shoulder seal is mounted on the second shoulder, wherein each shoulder seal has a first end received in a clamp and a second free end that extends over its respective shoulder of the center section towards the axial midpoint of the center section, and wherein each clamp is located between its nearest one of the bead lock mechanism and the center section. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 2 1. Claims 1--4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Appellants' Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A") in view of Connor (US 6,012,500, issued Jan. 11, 2000), Roedseth et al. (US 2006/0137825 Al, published June 29, 2006, "Roedseth"), and Martin et al. (DE 2317655, published Oct. 24, 1974, and relying on a translation dated Dec. 28, 2015, "Martin"). 2. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Martin in view of Vanderzee (US 4,269,649, issued May 26, 1981). 3. Claims 1--4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Lowe et al. (GB 1,113,622, published May 15, 1968, "Lowe") in view ofBaldoni et al. (US 6,360,802 Bl, issued Mar. 26, 2002, "Baldoni"). As a preliminary matter, the Examiner also rejects Claims 8 and 9 are under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to point 2 The Examiner withdrew the written description rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 made in the Final Office Action dated Oct. 26, 2016 (Ans. 2). 3 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 out and particularly claim the subject matter applicant regards as the invention. Appellants do not specifically contest the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection (Br. 5; Ans. 2). Therefore, we summarily affirm the Examiner's uncontested 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection. With respect to the rejections that Appellants specifically contest, Appellants do not argue any of the dependent claims separately from the other. See generally Br. Accordingly, we select independent claims 1, 8, and 9 as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal. FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS REJECTION (I): The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding AAP A, Connor, Roedseth, and Martin, are located on pages 6-10 of the Final Office Action. It is well understood that "[r ]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The fact that a reference may be modified to reflect features of the claimed invention does not make the modification, and hence the claimed invention, obvious unless the prior art, knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, or the nature of the problem to be solved suggested the desirability of such modification. In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this instance, Appellants argue, inter alia, that if the ordinary skilled artisan had applied the teachings of AAP A, Connor, Roedseth, and 4 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 Martin to construct a tire building drum, then the drum would not have possessed the claimed shoulder seals, wherein each shoulder seal's free end: (i) "is located axially between the clamps" ( claim 1 ); or (ii) extends towards an axial midpoint of the center section (claims 8, 9; see Br. 11-12). Connor's Figure 8, which illustrates a sectional view of a tire carcass mounted on a tire building machine, is reproduced below. 10~ FIG-8 14-4 146 124 -- 116 108 13.2 Figure 8 illustrates features of tire carcass 124 contacting left and right sleeve 100, each sleeve having an end 108 and the other end (106, annotation not shown) in contact with clamp 114. 5 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 Connor's Figure 10, which illustrates an enlarged view of the top left quarter of Figure 8, is reproduced below. '~ 11 11 .. ,,u, ,.,<.--./9 jJJw· 128 122 108 FIG-10 Figure 10 illustrates features of the left section of tire carcass 124 contacting left sleeve 100, in section, each sleeve having an end 108 and the other end (106, annotation not shown) in contact with clamp 114. The Examiner finds that Connor's sleeve 100 and end 108 disclose or suggest the claimed "shoulder seal" and "free end," thereof, respectively. See Act 3. The Examiner further finds that "[u]sing the existing clamps [70] of the drum of AAP A-as recommended by Connor-to hold shoulder seals would result in shoulder seals clamped between the bead lock mechanisms and having free ends curved around the expanding shoulder towards the center of the drum's center section" (Final Act. 7-8; see also Ans. 3--4; Spec. Fig. 3, ,r 5). We determine that the Examiner has not adequately explained why the claimed free end orientation or any free ends, for that matter, would have 6 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 resulted from use of the AAPA's existing clamps 70 to hold shoulder seals. In view of the absence of any free ends along AAPA's sleeve A (see Spec. Fig. 3), 3 the Examiner has not clearly articulated how Connor's teachings disclose or suggest the disputed limitations. We note that Connor, along with Martin, are the only references in the cited prior art that disclose the free ends of shoulder seals. 4 Thus, we tum next to whether Connor, in view of Martin, would have suggested the claimed free end orientation. Regarding Connor's teachings, there is no dispute that Connor does not teach or suggest the claimed free end orientation. As Appellants argue, Connor instead teaches a tire building drum with "the free end of the seal ... outside of the clamps and in a direction away from the drum center" (Br. 11; Ans. 3 (the Examiner "acknowledges and agrees that this is true."); see also Connor Figs. 8, 10 (left end 108 of left sleeve 100 extends away from the drum center in which left clamp 114 is located)). With respect to Martin's teachings, the Examiner finds that "Martin provides ... evidence that reconfiguring a center sleeve into two seals that are clamped at one end and free at the other end would result in free ends extending towards the center of the drum" (Ans. 4 (citing Martin Figure 1)). 3 The axially outer ends of the AAPA's sleeve A are substantially identical to the shoulder seal ends 62a and 62b shown in Figure 2 ( compare Spec. Fig. 2 with id. at Fig. 3). The Examiner's findings are based on the assumption that ends 62a and 62b are not free as they are received in existing clamps 70. See Ans. 3; Spec. Fig. 2. 4 In other words, the AAP A primary reference is silent regarding this feature. Compare Spec. Fig. 3 with id. at Fig. 4, which depicts AP AA sleeve A without free ends 64a or 64b ). 7 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 Martin's Figure 1, which illustrates an axial section through the top left quarter of a tire building machine with a stretched carcass, is reproduced below: FIG.1 4 2 \ ...... -- ... . ·::. -.".:.~- ....... ·+· ·- --~ "" .----:: I .. --· ·········-· . ···---r- ,. ---- . - ---~i-----t---+----- 11 1 Figure 1 illustrates features of the left section of tire carcass 4 contacting left membrane 8, in section, having a first end 9, which is in contact with clamp ring 7, and free edge 10. The Examiner finds that Martin's free edge 10 discloses or suggests the claimed "free end" (Final Act. 8; Ans. 4). Appellants contend that Martin's "free end of the seal would be outside of the clamps and in a direction away from the drum center." Id. Appellants' arguments are incorrect because Martin's free edge 10 extends in a direction between left and right clamps 7 and toward the drum center. See Martin Fig. 1. Nonetheless, the Examiner has not provided any finding that Martin suggests the desirability of modifying the direction in which Connor's end 108 extends. In other words, the Examiner has not provided adequate reasoning to explain why a person of skill in the art, in 8 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 view of Martin's free edge 10, would have modified Connor's left end 108 of left sleeve 100 to extend toward the drum center and axially to the right of left clamp 114. See Connor Fig. 8, 10; Martin Fig. 1. The Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness based upon articulated reasoning with rationale underpinnings. Thus, the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as to independent claims 1, 8, and 9. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-9 for the reasons set forth above. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). REJECTION (II): The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Martin and Vanderzee are located on pages 10-11 of the Final Office Action. Appellants argue that the ordinary skilled artisan would have known that tire components are placed on a center section of a tire building drum in order to build the tire, but the cited prior art describes drums without a center section (Br. 12). Appellants further argue that "a person skilled in the art of tire building drums utilizing common sense, would have no inventive [reason] to modify Martin with Vanderzee to arrive at [Appellants'] invention" because "neither Martin nor Vanderzee is concerned with tire building drums having a center section." Id. The Examiner responds by determining that "[ t ]he broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase 'center section' in [claims 1 and 9] is a section in the center" (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that the"[ c ]entrally- located section of Martin which extends from 7 on the left side to a[] non- diagrammed 7 on the right side is a 'center section' because it is a section in the center of the drum." Id.; see Martin Fig. 1. 9 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 The present appeal thus requires our interpretation of the language of claims 1 and 9, particularly our construction of the term "center section." During prosecution, the PTO gives the language of the proposed claims "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We first note that the Specification does not describe, nor have Appellants proffered in the Brief, a definition for the term "center section." In the absence of any definitions or evidence of the disputed term's meaning as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner's interpretation based upon the plain meaning of center section is reasonable. We, furthermore, agree with the Examiner that Appellants' arguments are drawn to an intended use of the claimed tire building drum's "center section." Therefore, we conclude that the term "center section," as recited in claims 1 and 9, encompasses Martin's section in the center of the drum. On this record, we find that Appellants' arguments have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's combination of Martin and Vanderzee to render claims 1 and 9 obvious. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 for the reasons set forth above, in the Final Office Action, and in the Answer. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). REJECTION (III): The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Lowe and Baldoni are located on pages 12-14 of the Final Office Action. 10 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance, the Examiner has not shown that Baldoni teaches or suggests that each shoulder seal: (i) "has a first end received in a clamp" ( claim 1 ); (ii) "has a free end ... and a fixed end'' ( claim 8); or (iii) "has a first end received in a clamp and a second free end" ( claim 9) ( emphasis added). Baldoni's Figure 4, which illustrates an axial section of a tire building drum, is reproduced below. Figure 4 illustrates features of the left section of tire body ply 4 defined by lateral portion 6 turned about metal bead 7, surrounded by an annular filler 8. Figure 4 further illustrates features of compressed air fed 11 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 through hole 41 into bladder 58, which once inflated, compresses lateral portion 6 of body ply 4 onto filler 8. The Examiner's annotation of Baldoni' s Figure 1, which illustrates an enlarged axial section of a tire building drum with bellow in rest position, is reproduced below. f!gur€> l of Ila!i:!m1i Annotated Figure 1 illustrates features of bladder 58 including inner reinforcing shoe 60, which is housed in an annular groove formed along surface 55 of block 50, and distal free end above 22. With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Baldoni discloses or suggest the claimed shoulder seal, which is clamped at one end 41 (Final Act. 12 (citing Baldoni Fig. 1)). However, Baldoni describes feature 41 not as a clamped free end, but as a hole 41 for feeding air into bladder 58 (Baldoni 5: 16). Even assuming the Examiner is referring to shoe 59 of bladder 58 (see id. at Fig. 1, 4:25-27) as disclosing or suggesting the claimed first end received in a clamp, the Examiner's finding is erroneous. Shoe 59 is not the terminal end of bladder 58. Rather, shoe 59 surrounds 12 Appeal 2018-00013 8 Application 13/585,904 hole 41 and bladder 58 terminates without a shoe or clamped feature at surface 55a. See Fig. 1. With regard to claims 8 and 9, the Examiner finds that "[ c ]lamped/fixed end 60 is between bead lock 64 and shoulder 50, [with] the material of the shoulder seal extending freely above shoulder 50 and terminating in a distal free end adjacent to 23" (Ans. 10; see also Final Act. 13-14; Baldoni Figs. 1--4). However, Baldoni does not disclose or suggest the requisite "fixed end" ( claim 8) or "first end received in a clamp" ( claim 9), each at the non-free end of a shoulder seal, because shoe 60 is not located at the terminal end ofbladder 58. See Baldoni Fig. 1; Ans. 9. As explained above, bladder 58 ends without a shoe or clamped feature at surface 55a. See Baldoni Fig. 1. Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that Baldoni teaches or suggests that claimed features of each shoulder seal. In sum, we find that the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness as to independent claims 1, 8, and 9. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-9 for the reasons set forth above. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). ORDER AFFIRMED-IN-PART 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation