Ex Parte Westgate et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2012

11931973 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/931,973 10/31/2007 Walter Kevin Westgate DN2007-171-US 1867
27280 7590 12/15/2012
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 823
1144 EAST MARKET STREET
AKRON, OH 44316-0001
EXAMINER
FISCHER, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2012 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 WALTER KEVIN WESTGATE,
JUDITH ANNE TWEEDIE, and JOHN FLEMING BRAINERD II
____________

Appeal 2011-013057
Application 11/931,973
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, RICHARD E. SCHFER, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 34-42. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 34 is illustrative:
34. A tire comprising:
a carcass including at least one carcass ply having a ply angle;
a crown portion;
shoulders;
sidewalls;
a bead region;
two beads, the beads within the bead region; and
a ply located in the sidewall of the tire, the ply comprising at least one
cord, the cord comprising aramid fibers and polyamide fibers, wherein the
Appeal 2011-013057
Application 11/931,973

2
cord is chosen from the group comprising a merge cord, a hybrid, and a core
insertion, wherein the cord is at an angle between 45° and 55° with respect
to the ply angle of the carcass ply.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Hanada et al. 4,779,659 Oct. 25, 1988
Reuter et al. 4,893,665 Jan. 16, 1990
Motogami et al. JP 05-294117A Nov. 9, 1993

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a tire comprising, inter
alia, a sidewall ply comprising at least one cord comprising aramid fibers
and polyamide fibers. The cord is at an angle between 45 and 55° with
respect to the ply angle of the carcass ply.
Appealed claims 34-37 and 39-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanada in view of Reuter. Claims 34-39,
41, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hanada in view of JP ‘117.
Appellants do not separately argue any particular claim on appeal.
Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 34.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, and we add the following for emphasis only.
Appeal 2011-013057
Application 11/931,973

3
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that
Hanada, like Appellants, teaches a tire construction including a radial
carcass, a crown portion, shoulders, sidewalls, a pair of bead regions, a pair
of beads, and a pair of sidewall plies which include textile cords inclined
between 0 and 45° with respect to the circumferential direction of the tire
(45-90° with respect to the radial carcass). There is also no dispute that
Hanada exemplifies the presently claimed aramid and polyamide fibers for
the sidewall ply of a tire.
As recognized by the Examiner, Hanada does not expressly teach the
use of hybrid textile cords comprising both aramid and polyamide fibers.
However, as shown by the Examiner, Reuter and JP ‘117 provide ample
evidence that the use of such hybrid fibers in a sidewall ply of a tire was
known in the art at the time of filing the present application. Reuter
specifically teaches a cord comprising aramid and polyamide fibers for use
in the carcass ply structure of a tire. We further note Appellants’ statement
that “[a]pplicant concedes that cords with aramid and polyamide fibers are
known” (Br. 5, second para.). Accordingly, we fully concur with the
Examiner’s legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ the claimed hybrid cords in the sidewall
ply of a tire to optimize adhesion, bead durability, and cutting resistance, as
taught by JP ‘117.
The thrust of Appellants’ argument is that the result of changing
functional components of the sidewall ply of a tire, on the performance of
the tire, cannot be predicted and, therefore, it is unpredictable and
nonobvious. However, the conclusory nature of Appellants’ argument
Appeal 2011-013057
Application 11/931,973

4
regarding potential unpredictability does not discharge their burden of
setting forth a rationale for why it would have been nonobvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed hybrid cord in a sidewall ply of
Hanada’s tire. Appellants have not asserted, let alone established with
objective evidence, that the claimed cords produce an unexpected result in
tire performance in light of the teaching in the prior art that such hybrid
cords optimize particular properties of the tire. In the absence of such
reasoning and evidence, the prima facie case of obviousness established by
the Examiner stands unrebutted.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam