Ex parte YASUTOSHI AOKI, et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 13, 1997

07844980 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 1997)

Application for patent filed March 2, 1992. According to1
appellants, the application is a continuation of Application
07/598,030, filed October 16, 1990, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte YASUTOSHI AOKI
and YASUTAKA ENOKI
_____________
Appeal No. 94-3608
Application 07/844,9801
______________
HEARD: July 14, 1997
_______________
Before STONER, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and ABRAMS and
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judges.
ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 94-3608
Application 07/844,980
2
This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 10, 12 through 16, 18,
19 and 22 through 25, which are the only claims remaining of
record in the application.
The appellants' invention is directed to a heavy-duty
pneumatic radial tire. The subject matter before us on appeal is
illustrated by reference to claim 1.
1. A heavy-duty pneumatic radial tire comprising a tread
wherein a pair of upper and lower rubber layers having mutually
different moduli of 300% elasticity at room temperature are
laminated, said upper rubber layer being located on a tread
surface side of said tire and having a smaller modulus of 300%
elasticity at room temperature than said lower rubber layer, said
tread comprising:
plural main grooves extending in said one rubber layer
located on said tread surface side of said tire, along the
circumferential direction of said tire, and defining land
portions adjacent a groove wall of each of said main grooves,
a narrow-width fine groove extending in said one of said
pair of upper and lower rubber layers which is located on a tread
surface side of said tire, along a circumferential direction of
said tire, a radius of curvature of a bottom of said fine groove
being 1.5 mm or less and a width of said fine groove being set in
a range of not less than 15% and not more than 30% of a width of
one of said main grooves,
wherein a shortest distance between said bottom of said fine
groove and a boundary surface bordering between said pair of
upper and lower rubber layers is set to be within a range of 1 mm
and 3 mm.
THE REFERENCES
Appeal No. 94-3608
Application 07/844,980
We note that the examiner has failed to list the admitted2
prior art as a reference on pages 2 and 3 of the Answer, although
it has been applied in two of the rejections of the appellants'
claims (pages 11 through 16).
3
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Brown 3,157,218 Nov. 17, 1964
Greiner 3,759,306 Sep. 18, 1973
Russell 3,830,275 Aug. 20, 1974
Mamada et al. (British '048) 2,190,048 Nov. 11, 1987
(UK Patent Application)
Kazuyuki (Japanese '403) 63-240403 Oct. 6, 1988
4,724,878 (English Language
Equivalent)
Japan (Japanese '305) 2-169305 June 29, 1990
313,361 (English Language
Equivalent)
Okuno (Japanese '904) 58-128904 Aug. 1, 1983
(Japan)
The prior art admitted by the appellants on pages 1 and 2 of the
specification.2
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 1 through 3, 8, 10, 13 through 15 and 22 through
25 on the basis of Japanese '904, Japanese '403, Russell, Brown
and British '048.
Appeal No. 94-3608
Application 07/844,980
4
(2) Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18 and 19 on the basis of the
references cited against claim 1 et al. above taken further in
view of Japanese '305.
(3) Claims 1 through 3, 8, 10, 13 through 15 and 22 through
25 on the basis of Greiner, the admitted prior art, Japanese '403
and British '048.
(4) Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18 and 19 on the basis of the
references cited against claim 1 et al. immediately above, taken
further in view of Japanese '305.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer and
Supplemental Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
With reference to pages 2 and 3 of the appellants Brief, the
problem to which their invention is directed is described in the
following manner:
Heavy duty pneumatic radial tires are subject to
great wear and heat. To resist excessive wear, wear-
resistant rubber is generally employed in an upper
tread surface. To resist heat deformation, heat-
resistant rubber having a different modulus of
elasticity than the wear-resistant layer is generally
employed in a lower layer of the tread. Further, these
Appeal No. 94-3608
Application 07/844,980
5
tires tend to wear irregularly and wander. Narrow-
width grooves can be employed to improve wear and
decrease wandering.
In such a tire, with a tread having a pair of
upper and lower rubber layers with different moduli of
elasticity, deforming stress concentrates in the
boundary surface bordering the two rubber layers when
the tire rolls normally or rides on a curb stone.
The appellants go on to describe their discovery that the
deforming stress which concentrated in the boundary surface
adversely affected the bottom of the fine groove, causing cracks
to occur, and that their invention solves this problem by a tire
construction having a plurality of features.
The following requirements manifest the appellants'
invention in both of the independent claims:
(1) Upper and lower tread layers having different moduli of
300% elasticity at room temperature with the layer located
on the tread surface side having a smaller modulus than the
other layer.
(2) Plural circumferential main grooves on the tread surface
side of the tire.
(3) A narrow-width fine circumferential groove in the layer
on the tread surface side of the tire and having
(a) a radius of curvature of its bottom of 1.5mm or
less, and
(b) a width in a range of not less than 15% and not
more than 30% of the width of one of the main grooves.
(4) The shortest distance between the bottom of the fine
groove and a boundary surface bordering between the pair of
upper and lower layers being within a range of 1mm and 3mm.
Appeal No. 94-3608
Application 07/844,980
6
Including the admitted prior art, the examiner has relied
upon the combined teachings of five references to meet the seven
limitations recited above in the two independent claims in the
first of the two rejections, and four references in the second.
However, essentially for the reasons expressed by the appellants
on pages 10 through 17 of the Brief, it is our view that the
combined teachings of the references cited in each of the two
rejections of independent claims 1 and 13 fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter
of these claims. In particular, it is our opinion that even
assuming, arguendo, that the features recited in these two claims
exist individually in the references relied upon, the only
suggestion for combining them in the manner proposed by the
examiner is found in the hindsight accorded one who first viewed
the appellants' disclosure. As our reviewing court stated in In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992):
It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an
instruction manual or "template" to piece together the
teachings of the prior art so that the claimed
invention is rendered obvious. This court has
previously stated that "[o]ne cannot use hindsight
reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated
Appeal No. 94-3608
Application 07/844,980
7
disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the claimed
invention" (citations omitted).
We will not sustain any of the rejections.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
BRUCE H. STONER, JR. Chief )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Oliff & Berridge
P. O. Box 19928
Alexandria, VA 22320