Ex Parte Wilson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13237045 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/237,045 09/20/2011 Brian D. Wilson 6608 8286
25280 7590 02/27/2017
Legal Department (M-495)
P.O. Box 1926
Spartanburg, SC 29304
EXAMINER
GOLDEN, CHINESSA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1788
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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 BRIAN D. WILSON,
MICHAEL EDWARD DOTSON, PATRICK A. PETRI,
and KIRKLAND W. VOGT
____________________

Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before GEORGE C. BEST, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1 and 3–11 as follows:

1 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed Sept. 20, 2011 (Spec.),
the Final Office Action appealed from mailed Dec. 1, 2014 (Final Act.), the
Appeal Brief filed May 3, 2015 (Br.), and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
Aug. 25, 2015 (Ans.).
2 The real party in interest is identified by Appellants as Milliken & Co.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

2
1. Claims 1 and 3–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Manesh3;
2. Claims 1 and 3–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
De Putter4 in view of Gray5;
3. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over De Putter
and Gray in view of Schuldink6;
4. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Manesh in
view of Colantonio7;
5. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Manesh in
view of Goodfellow8;
6. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over De Putter
and Gray in view of DeLorean9; and
7. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Manesh in
view of Rhyne.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to “an annular reinforcement structure having an
inner reinforcement band, an outer reinforcement band positioned around the
inner reinforcement band, whereby the two bands are spaced apart and
concentric.” Spec. 1. “[A] cast-in-place polymer foam spacer” separates the

3 Manesh et al., US 2008/0314486 A1, pub. Dec. 25, 2008 (“Manesh”).
4 De Putter, US 3,665,968, iss. May 30, 1972 (“De Putter”).
5 Gray et al., US 4,380,252, iss. Apr. 19, 1983 (“Gray”).
6 Schuldink, EP 0048522, pub. Mar. 31, 1982 (“Schuldink”).
7 Colantonio et al., US 6,453,961 B1, iss. Sept. 24, 2002 (“Colantonio”).
8 Goodfellow, US 5,203,937, iss. Apr. 20, 1993 (“Goodfellow”).
9 DeLorean et al., US 4,026,747, iss. May 31, 1977 (“DeLorean”).
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

3
inner and outer bands. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative (subject matter in dispute
italicized):
1. An annular reinforcement structure, comprising:
(a) an inner reinforcement band;
(b) a porous outer reinforcement band positioned around the
inner reinforcement band, whereby the inner and outer
reinforcement bands are spaced apart and concentric; and
(c) a cast-in-place, polymer foam spacer between the inner and
outer reinforcement bands, wherein the polymer foam
spacer permeates pores in the outer reinforcement band.
Br. 20 (Claims Appendix).
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of dependent
claims 4–6. Br. 2–8. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), claims
4–6 will stand or fall together with claim 1 from which they depend.
OPINION
Claim 1: Anticipation
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Manesh discloses the
inner and outer reinforcement bands that are spaced apart and concentric
“because the inner layer of the multiple layer interconnected web separates
the inner annular ring and the outer interconnected web (outer reinforcement
band).” Final Act. 2 (citing Manesh ¶¶ 10, 11, 49, 53, 63, 80, Fig. 10). The
Examiner also finds that Manesh discloses a polymer foam that “fills the
interconnected web which comprises openings (pores) and therefore
permeates pores in the interconnected web (outer reinforcement band).” Id.
at 3 (citing Manesh ¶¶ 52, 104). Regarding “cast-in-place” recited in claim
1, the Examiner finds that this is a process limitation that “would not be
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

4
expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the annular
reinforcement structure.” Id.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error
because (1) the recited “cast-in-place” requires that the foam is formed in
situ, (2) the recited “polymer foam spacer permeates pores” feature “can
only be provided by a structure when the foam spacer is formed in situ,” and
(3) “structural differences do exist between the cast-in-place structure recited
by the claims and the pre-formed structure taught by Manesh.” Br. 4 (citing
Spec. 5; Manesh ¶ 52).
The Examiner responds that “[t]he method of forming the product is
not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself” (Ans. 11) and
that “[t]here are numerous ways to permit a polymer foam spacer to
permeate pores of an outer reinforcement band” (id. at 13). The Examiner
finds by way of example that a polymer foam spacer may permeate pores of
an outer reinforcement band through “application of pressure or overfilling a
porous outer reinforcement band with polymer foam.” Id. Regarding
Manesh, the Examiner cites Figure 10 as showing a multiple layer
interconnected web having opening containing reinforcements with the outer
layer of the multiple layer interconnected web being an outer porous
reinforcement band. Id. The Examiner further cites paragraphs 52 and 104
as disclosing “a castable, polymer foam fills the interconnected web which
comprises openings (pores) within the web and therefore permeates pores in
the interconnected web (outer reinforcement band).” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and find that the
preponderance of the evidence supports the rejection of claim 1 for the
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

5
reasons provided by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer. Final
Act. 2–3; Ans. 2–3, 11–13. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner’s
finding that Manesh teaches inner and outer reinforcement bands that are
spaced apart and concentric and that a polymer film fills openings or pores
in the interconnected web of the outer reinforcement band is supported by
the record. Manesh ¶¶ 10, 11, 49, 52, 53, 63, 80, 104, Fig. 10. Appellants
provide only attorney argument regarding alleged structural differences
between the foam disclosed by Manesh, which fills openings or pores in
Manesh’s outer reinforcement band, and a foam formed in situ. Attorney
argument is insufficient to rebut the evidence cited by the Examiner. It is
well settled that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually
supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40
(Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In sum, Appellants have not persuaded us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that Manesh discloses the annular reinforcement
structure of claim 1.
Claims 1 and 3: Obviousness
The Examiner finds that De Putter teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1 with the exception of the “cast-in-place” recitation, which the
Examiner finds “would not be expected to impart distinctive structural
characteristics to the annular reinforcement structure.” Final Act. 4–5
(citing De Putter 1:4–5, 1:34–42, 2:9–15, 2:30–33, Fig.). Regarding the
recitation in claim 3 that “the outer reinforcement band is porous having an
inside and an outside face and the polymer foam spacer band extends past
the outside face of the outside band”, the Examiner finds that Gray teaches
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

6
an annual reinforcement structure comprising “an expanded polymeric
cushion matrix between adjacent strands (col. 1, lines 38–45) which fills
interspaces between adjacent strands (col. 3, lines 51–57) and penetrates the
surface of wire reinforcement layers (col. 4, lines 25–33, Fig. 2).” Id. at 5.
The Examiner’s reason for combining De Putter with Gray is “to allow the
foam to permeate the layers of De Putter . . . in order to help to bond a tube
to the reinforcement layers and/or cover, to reduce abrasion resistance there
between and to greatly reduce[] kink resistance in the tube (Gray et al., col.
3, lines 63–68, col. 4, lines 1–12).” Id. at 5–6.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3
over the combination of De Putter and Gray is in error because “De Putter
teaches away from the structural arrangement taught by Gray.” Br. 6.
According to Appellants, “De Putter specifically states it is ‘undesirable’ to
have the insulating layer on the inner side of the tube (col. 1, lines 6–14),
while [] Gray teaches the exact opposite arrangement (col. 1, line 61 to col.
2, line 3; Claim 1).” Id. Appellants further argue that Gray’s teaching that
“some of the expanding material may form a nodule or glob” at intersecting
points of a braid “is not the same as that claimed by Appellants. This feature
can only be provided by a structure when the foam spacer is formed in situ,
i.e. by the cast-in-place method recited by Appellants’ claims.” Id. at 7–8.
Appellants argue that “structural differences do exist between the cast-in-
place structure recited by the claims and the structure taught by De Putter in
view of Gray” and that the combination lacks a motivation or suggestion to
combine as well as a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 8.
The Examiner responds that De Putter does not teach away from Gray
because De Putter teaches an annular reinforcement structure comprising
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

7
outer and inner tube layers that are spaced apart and concentric with a
polymer foam spacer between the inner and outer reinforcement tubes. Ans.
13–14 (citing De Putter 1:4–5, 1:34–42, 2:9–15, 2:30–33, Fig.). The
Examiner further responds that Gray teaches an annular reinforcement
structure with “an expanded polymeric cushion matrix between adjacent
strands which fills interspaces between adjacent strands and permeates the
surface of wire reinforcement layers . . . .” Id. at 16. The Examiner finds
that “[t]he claim does not exclude the outer reinforcement band from having
a nodule or glob of expanding material extending past the outside face of the
outside band.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they are
conclusory and not sufficiently supported by the record. Appellants do not
adequately explain why Gray’s teaching of the benefits of the expanded
polymeric matrix or foam, namely bonding a tube to the reinforcement layer,
reducing abrasion resistance, and reducing kink resistance, does not suggest
modifying the annular reinforcement structure of De Putter. See Final Act.
5–6; Gray 3:63–68, 4:1–12. In addition, Appellants’ assertion that De Putter
states that it is undesirable to have the insulating layer on the inner side of
the tube is not supported by the record. Compare Br. 6 with De Putter 1:6–
12 (“In these known tubes[,] the foam plastic insulation is[,] however[,] on
the outer side of the tube.”) Appellants provide only attorney argument
regarding alleged structural differences between the foams disclosed by De
Putter and Gray and a foam formed in situ. Attorney argument is
insufficient to rebut the evidence cited by the Examiner. Huang, 100 F.3d at
139–40; De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705. In addition, Appellants do not dispute
the Examiner’s finding that the claim does not exclude the outer
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

8
reinforcement band from having a nodule or glob of expanding material
extending past the outside face of the outside band. Moreover, Gray’s
Figure 3 demonstrates that the polymer foam permeates pores in addition to
forming nodules or globs at intersecting points of a braid. An expanded
view of Gray’s glob or nodule 18’ on the outer surface of the braid, is shown
in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 shows expanding cushion 18 of Gray in the pores of outermost
reinforcement sheath 20 in addition to glob or nodule 18’ on the outside of
the outer reinforcement band. Therefore, Appellants’ assertion that the
polymer foam spacer of Gray does not “permeat[e] pores in the outer
reinforcement band” as recited in claim 1 also is not supported by the record.
In sum, Appellants have not persuaded us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of De Putter and Gray discloses the
annular reinforcement structure of claims 1 and 3.
Claim 7 over De Putter, Gray, and Schuldink
Regarding claim 7, which recites “wherein the polymer foam spacer is
a reticulated foam,” the Examiner finds that Schuldink teaches an annular
structure comprising an inner tube and an outer tube with a reticulated foam
between the inner and outer tubes. Final Act. 7 (citing Schuldink 1:1–3,
2:11–15, 5:9–12, 5:16–22, 6:14–25, Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds that
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

9
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use
the reticulated foam of Schuldink in the annular structure of De Putter as
modified by Gray in order to provide an insulating layer being sufficiently
flexible, easier to install, along with high temperature resistance as taught by
Schuldink. Id. (citing Schuldink 1:9–18, 2:7–10).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 is in error
because “De Putter teaches away from the structural arrangement taught by
Schuldink.” Br. 9. According to Appellants, “De Putter specifically states
that it is ‘undesirable’ to have the insulating layer on the inner side of the
tube (col. 1, lines 6–14), while [] Schuldink teaches the exact opposite
arrangement (col. 3, lines 13–18).” Id. Appellants further argue that the
combination does not teach element (c) of claim 1 and that the combination
lacks a motivation or suggestion to combine as well as a reasonable
expectation of success. Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they are
conclusory and not sufficiently supported by the record. Appellants do not
adequately explain why Schuldink’s teaching of the benefits of reticulated
foam does not suggest modifying the annular reinforcement structure of De
Putter. In addition, Appellants’ assertion that De Putter states that it is
undesirable to have the insulating layer on the inner side of the tube is not
supported by the record. Compare Br. 9 with De Putter 1:6–12 (“In these
known tubes the foam plastic insulation is however on the outer side of the
tube. Sometimes, however, this is undesirable . . . .”).
In sum, Appellants have not persuaded us of a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that Schuldink provides a reason for modifying De
Putter’s annular reinforcement structure and that there is a reasonable
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

10
expectation of success in achieving an annular reinforcement structure as
recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 over Manesh and Colantonio
Regarding claim 8, which recites “wherein the polymer foam spacer is
an open-cell foam and has a fraction of voids to net volume of 85 % or
greater,” the Examiner finds that Colantonio teaches “a radial ply structure
(col. 3, lines 52–55) comprising an open cell foam having a porosity of
between 60 and 90% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 85% or
greater (col. 3, lines 64–67).” Final Act. 8 (citing Colantonio). The
Examiner further finds that it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art “to modify the porosity of Manesh et al. to that of
Colantonio et al. in order to maintain the flexibility of the annular structure
and therefore able to adequately support the load of a vehicle (Colantonio et
al., col. 4, lines 14–20).” Id. (citing Colantonio).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 is in error
and repeat the same arguments for claim 8 as presented for claim 1. Br.
11–12. Appellants also argue that the combination of Manesh and
Colantonio is improper because Colantonio teaches pneumatic tires while
Manesh teaches non-pneumatic tires and the problems associated with
leaking air and risk of puncture, thus Manesh is said to “teach[] away from
the use of pneumatic tires.” Id. at 12 (citing Manesh ¶¶ 6, 7). Appellants
further argue that the combination lacks a motivation to combine as well as a
reasonable expectation of success because Manesh’s “flexible
interconnected web . . . provides enough tension to the tire to support the
weight of a load (Abstract; claim 1).” Id. at 13–14. In support of their
assertion that pneumatic tires and non-pneumatic tires have significant
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

11
differences, Appellants submit Exhibits A–E to show the honey-comb like
design of non-pneumatic tires for supporting the load of a vehicle and the
features of a pneumatic tire, including an illustration of a flat pneumatic tire.
Id. at 14, 23 (Evidence Appendix).
The Examiner responds that Colantonio is not relied upon for teaching
the limitation wherein the polymer foam spacer permeates pores in the outer
reinforcement band and that “[t]he method of forming the product is not
germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Appellant
presents evidence . . . that the claimed product differs in kind from those of
the prior art.” Ans. 18–19. The Examiner also responds that “[b]oth
Manesh and Colantonio disclose an annular structure comprising a foam
layer. Thus, Manesh does not teach away from the use of pneumatic tires
because both references are for annular structures.” Id. at 20. The Examiner
further responds that Appellants’ Specification discloses applications include
“tires for virtually any size vehicle or wheeled apparatus” which is “not
limited to either a pneumatic or non-pneumatic tire.” Id. (citing Spec. 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they are
conclusory and not sufficiently supported by the record. Appellants do not
adequately explain why Colantonio’s teachings of flexibility with its open
cell foam would not maintain the flexibility of Manesh’s annular structure
and therefore be able to adequately support the load of a vehicle, particularly
when both Colantonio and Manesh disclose an annular structure comprising
a foam layer. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 19–20; Colantonio 4:14–20; Manesh
¶ 104. In addition, Appellants’ assertion that the combination of pneumatic
and non-pneumatic tire art is improper is not supported by the record.
Appellants’ own Specification does not distinguish or delineate pneumatic or
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

12
non-pneumatic tires as applications incorporating Appellants’ annular
reinforcement structure, but, rather, includes tires generally. See Spec. 8.
In sum, Appellants have not persuaded us of a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that Colantonio provides a reason for modifying the
foam in Manesh’s annular reinforcement structure and that there is a
reasonable expectation of success in achieving an annular reinforcement
structure that is sufficiently flexible and adequately supports the load of a
vehicle based on the teachings of Colantonio.
Claim 9 over Manesh and Goodfellow
Regarding claim 9, which recites “wherein the inner and outer
reinforcement bands are each comprised of a cord selected from the group
consisting of monofilament or multi-filament yarns, and the cord is wound
into a helix making at least three revolutions,” the Examiner finds that
Goodfellow teaches
a reinforced tubular article (col. 1, lines 5–10) comprising at
least one reinforcing element wound to extend helically and/or
a plurality of reinforcing elements each of which extends
substantially circumferentially as a reinforcing ring in the
tubular structure (col. 1, lines 45–50), the reinforcing element
comprising a single monofilament or a plurality of filaments
arranged as a cord of a textile material (col. 1, lines 51–55).

Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner further finds that it would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art “to modify the annular structure
of Manesh et al. to having a cord wound around in a helix as that of
Goodfellow in order to provide an easy and accurate manufacture of an
annular structure with which its parts may be constructed and handled during
the stages of manufacture” as taught by Goodfellow. Id. at 9 (citing
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

13
Goodfellow 1:14–21). The Examiner also finds that it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art “to have the cord mak[e] a
plurality of revolutions around . . . depending on the length of the annular
structure and the cord, which would have arrived at the continuous tube.”
Id. (citing Goodfellow 5:29–34).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 is in error
for the same reasons discussed above with respect to anticipation by Manesh
and because “Goodfellow teaches pneumatic tires (col. 1, lines 5–13), while
Manesh teaches non-pneumatic tires.” Br. 16.
The Examiner responds that “[b]oth Manesh and Goodfellow disclose
an annular reinforcement structure comprising a reinforcing element wound
into a tubular form. Thus, Manesh does not teach away from the use of
pneumatic tires because both references are for annular reinforcement
structures.” Ans. 21. The Examiner further responds that Appellants’
Specification discloses applications include “[t]ires for virtually any size
vehicle or wheeled apparatus” which is “not limited to either a pneumatic or
non-pneumatic tire.” Id. (citing Spec. 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they are
conclusory and not supported by the record. Appellants do not adequately
explain why Goodfellow’s teaching of a reinforcing element wound into a
tubular form for an annular reinforcement structure does not suggest
modifying the annular reinforcement structure of Manesh. In addition,
Appellants’ assertion that pneumatic and non-pneumatic tire art cannot be
combined does not adequately explain how the differences impact the
annular reinforcement structures disclosed in Manesh and Goodfellow and
claimed in claim 9.
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

14
In sum, Appellants have not persuaded us of a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that Goodfellow provides a reason for modifying
Manesh’s annular reinforcement structure with Goodfellow’s reinforcing
cord and that there is a reasonable expectation of success in achieving an
annual reinforcement structure as recited in claim 9.
Claim 10 over De Putter, Gray, and DeLorean
Regarding claim 10, which recites “wherein the polymer spacer foam
contains voids, and wherein the voids are filled with a polymer,” the
Examiner finds that DeLorean teaches “an annular reinforcement structure
(col. 1, lines 45–56) comprising multiple layers of open-cell foam strips and
reinforcing filaments (col. 1, lines 45–58) wherein the open cells (voids) of
the foam are filled with resins (col. 2, lines 15–21, col. 3, lines 24–31).”
Final Act. 10. The Examiner further finds that it would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art “to fill the foam of De Putter with
polymer as that of DeLorean et al. in order to encapsulate the reinforcing
fillers within the structure and therefore aid in the strength and
impermeability of the structure” as taught by DeLorean. Id. (citing
DeLorean 1:49–56, 5:5–8).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 is in
error because DeLorean does not provide for the deficiencies of De Putter in
view of Gray discussed above in connection with claim 1 and “DeLorean
teaches reinforced plastic pipe having an extruded plastic core element
surrounded by an open-cell foam impregnated with a thermosetting resin
(Abstract, col. 2, lines 3–21).” Br. 16–17.
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

15
The Examiner responds that the combination of De Putter and Gray
teach the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above in connection with claim
1. Ans. 22.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the same reasons
discussed above in connection with the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over
De Putter and Gray. In addition, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
findings with respect to DeLorean, nor do Appellants identify any error in
the Examiner’s combination of DeLorean’s teachings with the annular
reinforcement structure of De Putter and Gray.
In sum, Appellants have not persuaded us of a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that DeLorean provides a reason for modifying De
Putter’s annular reinforcement structure as modified by Gray and that there
is a reasonable expectation of success in achieving an annular reinforcement
structure with open cells (voids) of the foam filled with resins to aid the
strength and impermeability of the structure based on the teachings of
DeLorean.
Claim 11 over Manesh and Rhyne
Regarding claim 11, which recites “wherein the structure is embedded
in a matrix material,” the Examiner finds that Rhyne teaches an annular
structure wherein “the structure is embedded in an elastomeric coating.”
Final Act. 10–11 (citing Rhyne ¶¶ 5, 47). The Examiner further finds that it
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art “to
embed the structure of Manesh et al. in a matrix material as that of Rhyne et
al. in order to provide an annular structure with adequate load support and
endurance along with shock absorbing capability” as taught by Rhyne. Id. at
11 (citing Rhyne ¶ 3 [sic, ¶ 2]).
Appeal 2016-001266
Application 13/237,045

16
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 is in
error because “Rhyne fails to provide for these deficiencies [of Manesh]”
presented with respect to claim 1 above. Br. 18.
The Examiner responds that Manesh teaches the limitations of claim 1
as discussed above in connection with claim 1. Ans. 22.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the same reasons
discussed above in connection with claim 1.
In sum, Appellants have not persuaded us of a reversible error in the
Examiner’s finding that Rhyne provides a reason for modifying Manesh’s
annular reinforcement structure by embedding it in a matrix material to
provide adequate load support and shock absorbing capability based on the
teachings of Rhyne.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED