Ex Parte Zuchoski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2018

14688842 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/688,842 04/16/2015
1912 7590 11/26/2018
AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
90 PARK A VENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeremie Zuchoski
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.
80225-43 8543
EXAMINER
KOTTER, KIP T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2018 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):
PTODOCKET@ARELA W.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEREMIE ZUCHOSKI, JEAN BERNARD, and
STEPHANE PILETTE 1
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 48-106. 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Camso Inc. ("Appellant") is the Applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46 and is identified as the real paiiy in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1--47 are cancelled. Amendment (Oct. 18, 2016). . .
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 48, 77-79, and 106 are independent. Claim 48, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
48. A track assembly for traction of a vehicle, the track assembly
compnsmg:
a) a track comprising a ground-engaging outer side for
engaging the ground and an inner side opposite to the ground-
engaging outer side; and
b) a track-engaging arrangement for driving and guiding
the track around the track-engaging arrangement, a bottom run
of the track extending under the track-engaging arrangement, the
track-engaging arrangement comprising:
1. a drive wheel for driving the track; and
ii. a plurality of guiding wheels contacting the bottom
run of the track;
wherein: an axis of rotation of a given one of the guiding
wheels is movable relative to an axis of rotation of the drive
wheel when the track assembly moves on the ground; and the
given one of the guiding wheels is resilient to be elastically
deformable when the track assembly moves on the ground.
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Schoonover us 3,703,321 Nov. 21, 1972
Grawey us 5,279,378 Jan. 18, 1994
Akiyama us 6,068,354 May 30, 2000
Todd US 2007/0169968 Al July 26, 2007
Tanaka JP 07-276908 Oct. 24, 1995
2
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
REJECTIONS 3
I. Claims 48-53, 59---62, 66-70, and 72-78 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Todd and Grawey. Final
Act. 4--7.
II. Claims 54--58, 79-92, 95-99, and 101-105 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Todd, Grawey, and Tanaka.
Id. at 8-9.
III. Claims 63---65 and 71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Todd, Grawey, and Akiyama. Id. at 9-11.
IV. Claims 93, 94, and 100 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Todd, Grawey, Tanaka, and Akiyama. Id. at 11-12.
V. Claim 106 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Todd and Schoonover. Id. at 12-13.
OPINION
Rejection I
Claims 48, 50-53, 59-62, 66-70, and 72-78
In rejecting independent claim 48, the Examiner finds that Todd
discloses, in relevant part, "a plurality of guiding wheels 130, 140 contacting
the bottom run of the track ... includ[ing] a leading idler wheel 140 and a
trailing idler wheel 140 spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the track
assembly (Figs. 1, 3 and 4)." Final Act. 5. The Examiner acknowledges that
"Todd fails to expressly disclose each of its idler wheels being resilient and
3 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 48-106 on the basis of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-69 of U.S. Patent No. 9,033,430 B2. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
elastically deformable when the track moves on the ground," but finds that
Grawey discloses "a track assembly that includes a pair of resilient idler
wheels 104, 106 (Fig. 9) that are elastically deformable, inasmuch as they
are ... pneumatic wheels, when the track moves on the ground." Id. at 6.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Todd's
track assembly "by using resilient, elastically deformable wheels for its
idlers, such as taught by Grawey, to allow its track to better conform to the
contour of the terrain on which it is used and to improve shock absorption."
Id.
Appellant argues that "Grawey's pneumatic idler wheel 54 has a
purpose, function and design that are essentially meaningless for Todd's
ATV track assembly." Appeal Br. 12. Appellant asserts that "idler wheel
54 is ... way too large and wide for Todd's ATV track assembly [and] is
designed to remain fixed contrary to the movable idler wheels of Todd's
pivotable ATV track assembly." Id. at 13. We are not persuaded by this
argument because it appears to rely on bodily incorporation of specific
structural details of Grawey's idler wheel (i.e., the relative dimensions of
pneumatic idler wheel 54 as implemented in Grawey 's track assembly) into
Todd, which is not the standard for an obviousness rejection. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) (stating "[t]he test for obviousness
is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference"). Moreover,
Appellant does not persuasively refute the Examiner's position that "it
would have been well-within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to
have modified the dimensions of the idlers, as needed, to ensure that the
idlers are compatible with the track assembly of Todd." Ans. 4.
4
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
Appellant argues that Grawey's pneumatic idler wheel 54 is intended
to accommodate debris intrusion and adjust tension in a track that is
frictionally-driven, whereas Todd's track uses a drive sprocket 110 to
engage holes in the track. Appeal Br. 13 (citing Grawey, col. 9, 11. 8-14;
col. 12, 11. 4--8; Todd ,r 57, Fig. 1). According to Appellant, "[t]he notion of
accommodating debris intrusion and adjusting inflation pressure to maintain
a required tension in Todd's track to properly frictionally drive it would not
make sense since Todd's track is not frictionally driven." Id. at 13-14. We
are not persuaded by this argument. Appellant's argument appears to
suggest that accommodating debris intrusion and maintaining track tension
are only relevant to frictionally-driven tracks, but Appellant does not proffer
any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to support such a position.
Further, Appellant does not specifically address or identify a flaw in the
Examiner's reasoning that "the concept of accommodating debris intrusion
between the belt and its entrained wheels without damaging either is a
common concern associated with a track assembly which is to be operated in
an environment in which debris may be encountered." Ans. 54; see also id.
( explaining that "[ t ]his concern would be present irrespective of the
4 Although Appellant asserts in the Reply Brief that using inflation to adjust
track tension would be unnecessary in Todd, given that Todd already
includes a tensioning assembly (Reply Br. 4 (citing Todd ,r,r 104--105)),
Appellant does not address the Examiner's additional reasoning that
accommodating debris intrusion in Todd's track using a pneumatic wheel
would be a desirable benefit. Ans. 5--6. Moreover, we do not view the
provision of additional features for adjusting the tension of the track as
strictly redundant to the tensioning assembly, but rather as providing an
aggregate benefit.
5
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
particular driving means (e.g., friction drive, external drive, internal drive)
employed in the track assembly"). Id.
Appellant argues that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
be led to incorporate a pneumatic wheel such as Grawey's pneumatic idler
wheel 54 in Todd's ATV track assembly given that the environment in
which an ATV operates is very different from that of the heavy-duty
agricultural or work vehicle of Grawey." Appeal Br. 15. Appellant asserts
that "the risk of puncture (i.e., 'flat') of the pneumatic wheel would
discourage its use in an ATV which is exposed to rugged terrain with rocks
and other objects that would be highly likely to puncture the pneumatic
wheel and render it 'inoperable."' Id. This argument is unpersuasive.
The Examiner responds in the Answer that "it is well-known in the art
to utilize pneumatic wheels for A TVs despite the increased risk of punctures
because of the benefits that such wheels provide." Ans. 8; see also id.
( explaining that "that the pros and cons regarding the use of pneumatic
wheels, as well as non-pneumatic wheels, are well-known in the art").
Appellant does not dispute that "conventional ATVs are equipped with
pneumatic wheels." Reply Br. 5. That pneumatic tires may present a risk of
being punctured during use suggests that the Examiner's proposed
modification of Todd involves tradeoffs; however, such considerations do
not necessarily preclude the proposed combination. See Medichem, S. A. v.
Rolabo, S. L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("a given course of
action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does
not necessarily obviate motivation to combine"); Winner Int 'l Royalty Corp.
v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The fact that the
motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should
6
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with
the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should
be weighed against one another."). Appellant's argument does not identify
error in the Examiner's reasoning that using pneumatic idler wheels in Todd
would advantageously "allow its track to better conform to the contour of
the terrain on which it is used and ... improve shock absorption." Final
Act. 6.
Appellant argues that "using a pneumatic idler wheel like Grawey's in
Todd's track assembly could result in the pneumatic tire deforming under
tension of the track and prevent[] the drive sprocket 110 [from] properly
driv[ing] the track." Appeal Br. 16. Appellant points to Exhibit A as
evidence to support this position. See id. ( explaining that "Exhibit A
includes copies of pictures from a test conducted by the Appellant on an
ATV's track assembly comprising a drive sprocket like Todd's ATV track
assembly, but comprising an idler wheel including a tire"). Appellant's
evidence is insufficient to persuade us of error in the Examiner's conclusion
of obviousness. We agree with the Examiner that "Exhibit A represents
nothing more than evidence that Appellant has previously tested an unknown
track assembly that includes a tire made of polyurethane foam having a
density of 26 lb/ft3 which resulted in transmission issues between the drive
wheel and track under certain unknown operating conditions." Ans. 9
( emphasis added); see Ex. A, Declaration of Jeremie Zuchoski ,r 2 (stating,
"Exhibit A includes copies of pictures from a test conducted ... on an
ATV' s track system comprising an idler wheel including a tire made of
polyurethane foam having a density of 26 lb/ft3."). In other words, the
proffered evidence regarding the use of a foam wheel in an unknown track
7
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
assembly under unknown conditions does not support Appellant's
contention that modifying Todd's track assembly to use a pneumatic idler
wheel, as proposed by the Examiner, would result in the wheel deforming
enough to prevent the track from functioning properly.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's articulated reasoning is
unsupported speculation. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant asserts that "Grawey
does not teach that its pneumatic idler wheel 54 allows its track to better
conform to the terrain or improve shock absorption." Id. To the extent
Appellant is insisting on an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
Grawey for the Examiner's proposed modification, such an argument has
been foreclosed by the Supreme Court. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,415,419 (2007) (stating that a rigid insistence on teaching,
suggestion, or motivation is incompatible with its precedent concerning
obviousness). Rather, the Court requires that we look to whether the
Examiner has provided "some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at
418).
The Examiner reasons that the proposed modification would improve
terrain conforming ability and shock absorption. Final Act. 6. The
Examiner explains that, "[ w ]hile these particular benefits of using pneumatic
idler wheels are not explicitly discussed in the Grawey reference, they are
well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art." Ans. 7 (the Examiner
citing Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 3,311,424, issued March 28, 1967) as
"expressly teach[ing] these particular benefits of using resilient idler wheels,
and in particular pneumatic idler wheels, in track assemblies"). Appellant
8
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
does not identify any flaw in the Examiner's findings or reasoning with
respect to the advantages of using pneumatic idler wheels. Thus, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner's articulated reasoning as to why it would have
been obvious to modify Todd's track assembly to use a pneumatic idler
wheel (i.e., to improve terrain conforming ability and shock absorption)
lacks rational underpinnings.
Appellant also argues that there would be no reason to use Grawey's
pneumatic idler wheel 54 in Todd's track assembly because "terrain
conformance and shock absorption ... are already addressed and fulfilled by
Todd's ATV track assembly without additional cost or complexity." Appeal
Br. 19. The Examiner responds that "one of ordinary skill in the art would
... consider additional known means for improving shock absorption and
terrain conformance of the track," and "would understand that track
assemblies often include multiple means for reducing shock." Ans. 12. In
this regard, Appellant does not identify any defect in the Examiner's
reasoning or persuasively explain why this reasoning lacks rational
underpinnings.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness with respect to independent claim
48. We sustain the rejection of claim 48, and its dependent claims 50-53,
59---62, 66-70, and 72-76, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments
(Appeal Br. 20-21), under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Todd
and Grawey. We also sustain the rejection of independent claims 77 and 78,
for which Appellant relies on the same arguments and reasoning we found
unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 48 (id. at 21--40), under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Todd and Grawey.
9
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
Claim 49
In contesting the rejection of claim 49, which depends from claim 48,
Appellant argues that "[ n ]either Todd nor Grawey disclose both leading and
trailing resilient idler wheels." Appeal Br. 19. Appellant asserts that
"Grawey clearly teaches using only one idler wheel, not two, since the
opposing wheel is a frictional drive wheel." Id. at 20. This argument is
unpersuasive because it essentially attacks the cited references individually,
rather than the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, which is based on
the combined teachings of Todd and Grawey. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425
( one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when
the rejection is based on a combination of the references). As discussed
above, the Exarniner relies on Todd for teaching a track assembly with
leading and trailing idler wheels and Grawey for teaching resilient
pneumatic idler wheels. Final Act. 5----6.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 49. We
sustain the rejection of claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Todd and Grawey.
Rejection II
In rejecting independent claim 79, the Examiner determines that the
combination of Todd and Grawey set forth in Rejection I renders obvious
the claimed structure "with the exception of leading idler wheel and trailing
wheel comprising non-pneumatic tires in the form of polyurethane foam that
forms at least part of a periphery of the wheels." Final Act. 8. However, the
Examiner finds that "Tanaka teaches the use of a non-pneumatic tire in the
form of a resilient wheel 17 formed from polyurethane foam that forms at
10
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
least part of its periphery at 18 (Abstract, Figs. 4 and 5)." Id. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Todd's track assembly
Id.
by using resilient, elastically deformable wheels for its idlers,
such as taught by Grawey, and to substitute these well-known
resilient wheels for resilient non-pneumatic tires formed from
polyurethane foam that forms at least part of its periphery, such
as taught by Tanaka, as well-known alternative resilient wheels
that would provide predictable results for allowing its track to
better conform to the contour of the terrain on which it is used
and to improve shock absorption during use while providing a
puncture proof tire that has good cushioning properties and can
adequately support a desired load.
Appellant initially argues that "[i]t would not have been obvious to
modify Todd's ATV track assembly in view of Grawey for reasons
discussed above in [connection with Rejection I]. Appeal Br. 41. For the
same reasons discussed above in connection with Rejection I, Appellant's
arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner's proposed
modification of Todd based on the teachings of Grawey. Appellant also
argues that Tanaka is non-analogous art. Id. at 42--43. We are not
persuaded by this argument.
Tanaka is analogous art at least because the reference is "reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved."' In
re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Tanaka relates to a tire made using
polyurethane foam. Tanaka, Abstract. Tanaka discloses that the purpose of
the invention is "to provide a non-puncture tire with a strength, slip
resistance, cushioning property, and low hysteresis loss." Id. Indeed,
Appellant acknowledges that "Tanaka is concerned with shock absorption
for vehicles." Appeal Br. 43 ( emphasis added). Similarly, Appellant
11
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
explains that "the [S]pecification of the present application describes a
problem faced by the inventors to be absorbing shocks or overcoming large
obstacles ( e.g., rocks, portions of trees, debris, ice blocks, bumps or other
abrupt changes in ground level, etc.) with a track assembly (p. 1, ln.26-31 )."
Id. at 42--43 (emphasis added). In other words, Tanaka and Appellant were
both concerned with shock absorption for vehicles traveling over ground.
Even though Tanaka does not specifically disclose track assemblies, the
reference "is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically
would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his
problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellant argues that substituting Tanaka's foam tire for Grawey's
idler wheel 54 "would impermissibly change principles of operation of
Grawey's pneumatic idler wheel [5]4 and render it unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose." Appeal Br. 43. In particular, Appellant asserts that
Tanaka's foam wheel would not be able to increase track tension in Grawey,
and would not have the lateral rigidity necessary to guide Grawey's track.
Id. at 43--45. This argument is unpersuasive because it is not responsive to
the rejection as presented. As discussed above, the Examiner does not
propose modifying Grawey 's track assembly to use Tanaka's foam wheel.
Instead, the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based on a proposed
modification of Todd's track assembly to use a resilient idler wheel, as
taught by Grawey (i.e., pneumatic idler wheel 54), further modified to
substitute Tanaka's non-pneumatic foam wheel for the resilient idler wheel.
Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 37-39 (explaining that Todd is the base reference
that is modified according to the teachings of Grawey and Tanaka).
12
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness with respect to independent claim
79. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 79, and of
claims 54--58, 80-92, 95-99, and 101-105, for which Appellant relies on the
same arguments (Appeal Br. 46-47), under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Todd, Grawey, and Tanaka.
Re} ections III and IV
In contesting the rejections of dependent claims 63---65, 71, 93, 94,
and 100, Appellant relies on the arguments presented for patentability of
independent claims 48 and 79. Appeal Br. 47--48. For the reasons discussed
above, Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error in the rejections of
claims 48 and 79, and likewise do not apprise us of error with respect to the
rejections of claims 63---65, 71, 93, 94, and 100. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of: claims 63---65 and 71 as unpatentable
over Todd, Grawey, and Akiyama; and claims 93, 94, and 100 as
unpatentable over Todd, Grawey, Tanaka, and Akiyama.
Rejection V
The Examiner finds that Todd teaches most of the limitations of
independent claim 106, except for "one of the guiding wheels comprising a
non-pneumatic tire." Final Act. 12. However, the Examiner finds that
"Schoonover teaches a track assembly wherein the guiding wheels can be
fitted with either a pneumatic or non-pneumatic tire depending on the
contemplated use of the track assembly (lines 44-50 of col. 2)." Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Todd's track
assembly to use a non-pneumatic tire for a given guiding wheel in order "to
provide predictable results for improving the durability of the wheel
13
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
inasmuch as the tire would take up the majority of the wear instead of the
wheel." Id. at 12-13.
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify
Todd's track assembly, as proposed by the Examiner, because
[ n ]othing in Schoonover even remotely suggests that
incorporating a non-pneumatic tire in place of another type of tire
would result in "improving the durability of the wheel", let alone
that it would somehow allow the non-pneumatic tire to "take up
the majority of the wear" instead of the wheel supporting the tire.
Appeal Br. 50. According to Appellant, "[t]he Examiner has also failed to
provide any other prior art showing that such an advantage of incorporating
a non-pneumatic tire was known in the art." Id. To the extent Appellant is
insisting on an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Schoonover
for the Examiner's proposed modification, such an argument has been
foreclosed by the Supreme Court. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415,419 (2007).
The Examiner reasons that the proposed modification would improve
the durability of the wheel. Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner explains that,
"[a]lthough Schoonover does not expressly state that fitting a tire on a wheel
would improve the durability of the wheel as opposed to a wheel which does
not include a tire fitted thereon, such benefit is well-known and readily
apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art." Ans. 41; see also id. at 42 (the
Examiner citing "Souther (U.S. Patent No. 11,446 issued August 1, 1854) as
evidence that the Examiner's stated advantage of utilizing tires to improve
the durability of the wheel is known in the art"). Appellant does not dispute
"that a tire improves the durability of a carriage-wheel as suggested by
Souther," but argues that "nothing in Souther amounts to a suggestion that a
non-pneumatic tire or a pneumatic tire instead of a solid wheel without
separate tires fitted thereon as taught by Todd, would be more durable than a
14
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
wheel with no tire fitted thereon that is in contact with a track." Reply Br. 9.
The Examiner takes the position that "it is readily apparent to one having
ordinary skill in the art that a wheel with a tire fitted thereon ( either
pneumatic or non-pneumatic) for contacting the track would be more
durable than a wheel with no tire fitted thereon that is in contact with track."
Id. at 42. \Ve are not persuaded that the benefit of improved durability lacks
applicability to wheels in contact with a track. Thus, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner's articulated reasoning as to why it would have been
obvious to modify Todd's track assembly to use a non-pneumatic tire for a
given guiding wheel (i.e., "to provide predictable results for improving the
durability of the wheel inasmuch as the tire would take up the majority of
the wear instead of the wheel" (Final Act. 12-13)) lacks rational
underpinnings.
Appellant argues that "using a non-pneumatic tire like Schoonover's
in Todd's track assembly could result in the non-pneumatic tire deforming
under tension of the track and prevent[] the drive sprocket 110 [from]
properly driv[ing] the track." Appeal Br. 50. This argument is substantially
similar to an argument presented with respect to independent claim 48,
subject to Rejection I (compare id., with id. at 16-17), and, for the same
reasons discussed above, is not persuasive with respect to claim 106.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 106. We
sustain the rejection of claim 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Todd and Schoonover.
15
Appeal 2018-001139
Application 14/688,842
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 48-53, 59---62, 66-70, and
72-78 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Todd and Grawey is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 54--58, 79-92, 95-99, and
101-105 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Todd, Grawey, and
Tanaka is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 63---65 and 71 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Todd, Grawey, and Akiyama is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 93, 94, and 100 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Todd, Grawey, Tanaka, and
Akiyama is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Todd and Schoonover 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
16