Jacob John et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 13, 2020

14997146 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020)

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.
14/997,146 01/15/2016 Jacob John 2013P70107WOUS 9218
137541 7590 02/13/2020
Continental
Intellectual Property
Jaedekamp, 30
Hannover, 30419
GERMANY
EXAMINER
FISCHER, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2020 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):
david.cate@continental.com
greg.adams@continental-corporation.com
hannover.patente@conti.de
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JACOB JOHN, MICHAL LACKO,
MIGUEL BISPO, and BRIDGET POLAND

Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JULIA HEANEY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Continental
Reifen Deutschland GmbH, Jacob John, Michal Lacko, Miguel Bispo, and
Bridget Poland. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The present application generally relates to a pneumatic tire for
commercial vehicles that includes a five-ply belt. Specification dated Jan.
15, 2016 (“Spec.”) 1. Each ply of the belt is taught to contain
reinforcements which run parallel within a given ply. Id. The
reinforcements in one ply need not be parallel with the reinforcements in
another ply. In a preferred embodiment, the reinforcements “run at angles α,
β, γ, δ, and φ to the circumferential direction [indicated by line A–A].” Id.
at 6. The Specification further teaches that in this embodiment, the slope of
the reinforcements relative to the circumference of the tire (beginning with
the innermost layer) “slope upward in the following sequence: to the right -
to the right - 0° - to the left - to the left.” Id. Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 shows a plan (top) view of segments of the belt plies of a preferred
embodiment. Id. at 5. “The belt 4 has five belt plies 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9,
wherein the first belt ply is the radially innermost belt ply 5.” Id.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis:
1. A pneumatic vehicle tire of radial configuration for
commercial vehicles, the pneumatic vehicle tire defining an
axial direction and comprising:
a tread;
Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
3

a belt disposed beneath said tread and having five belt plies
having respective sets of reinforcements with the
reinforcements of each set being arranged so as to be parallel
to each other;
said five belt plies being disposed one atop the other and
being successively identified as first, second, third, fourth and
fifth belt plies from radially innermost to radially outermost
plies, respectively;
said third belt ply being a 0° ply having a predetermined
width and comprised of several component plies in said axial
direction;
said second and fourth belt plies being working belt plies each
directly adjacent said third ply;
said second and fourth belt plies having respective widths and
said predetermined width of said third belt ply being less than
each of said widths of said second and fourth belt plies;
the respective sets of reinforcements of said first and
second belt plies lying adjacent one side of said 0° ply
running upward at respective positive slopes and the
respective sets of reinforcements of said fourth and fifth
belt plies lying adjacent the other side of said 0° ply
running upward at respective negative slopes;
said tire defining a peripheral direction (A–A); said set of
reinforcements of said first belt ply and said peripheral
direction (A–A) conjointly defining an angle α lying in a
range of 35° ≤ α ≤ 70°;
said set of reinforcements of said fifth belt ply and said
peripheral direction (A-A) conjointly defining an angle φ
lying in a range of 35° ≤ φ ≤ 70°;
wherein the reinforcements of the reinforcement sets of
said fourth and fifth belt plies run upward to the right;
wherein the reinforcements of the reinforcement sets of
first and second belt plies run upward to the left;
the reinforcements of said sets of reinforcements in said
second and fourth belt plies having an elongation of ≥ 0.2%
at 10% breaking load;
Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
4

said elongation being measured using reinforcements taken
from a fully vulcanized tire; and,
the set of reinforcements corresponding to said third ply being
differentially prestressed so as to cause circumferential
stiffness in individual ones of said component plies to be
selectively influenced to provide additional support for
achieving uniform wear of said tread.

Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Bederna et al.
(“Bederna”)
US 2012/0318426 Al Dec. 20. 2012
Uniroyal, Inc.
(“Uniroyal”)
GB 1418558 Dec. 24, 1975
Kanehira et al.
(“Kanehira”)
JP 2003-237312 Aug. 27, 2003
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the following rejection: Claims 1 and 3–11
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bederna in
view of Kanehira and further in view of Uniroyal. Final Action dated June
8, 2018 (“Final Act.”) 2–4.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3–11 as obvious over Bederna in
view of Kanehira and further in view of Uniroyal. Id. In support of the
rejection, the Examiner finds that Bederna teaches an embodiment (shown in
Figure 4) including four belt plies (designated 13–16) that correspond to
Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
5

plies 2–5 of the claims. Id. at 2. The Examiner further finds that Bederna
teaches a different embodiment (shown in Figure 6) including four belt plies
(designated 17, 13, 14, and 15) that correspond to plies 1–4 of the claims.
These embodiment are depicted in Figures 4 and 6, reproduced below.

Figure 4 (left) and Figure 6 (right) each show a top view of a radial tire.
Bederna ¶¶ 21–26. Figure 4 depicts the reinforcements of inner working ply
13 as sloping upward to the left, those of ply 14 as vertical (0°), and those of
plies 15 and 16 as sloping upward to the right (angles designated by Greek
letters). Figure 6 depicts the reinforcements of inner plies 17 and 13 sloping
upward to the left, those of ply 14 as vertical (0°), and those of outer ply 15
as sloping upward to the right (angles designated by Greek letters). Thus,
Figure 6 is generally similar to Figure 4 but has two plies interior to the 0°
ply and one ply exterior to it rather than two plies exterior and one ply
interior thereto.
The Examiner further relies upon the following portion of Bederna:
Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
6

In further alternative versions, not illustrated, the
additional inner belt ply 17 illustrated in connection with FIG. 5
and FIG. 6 is also formed in the versions with an additional belt
ply 16 which are illustrated in connection with FIG. 3 and FIG.
4. In this case, the belt 9 is formed from a 5-ply arrangement
with the belt plies 17, 13, 14, 15 and 16 arranged one above
the other radial from inside radially outward.

Bederna ¶ 43 (emphasis added). The Examiner relies upon this paragraph,
in conjunction with Figures 4 and 6 and related disclosures as teaching the
five (5) plies of claim 1 and the orientation of their reinforcements.

Claim 1
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is erroneous. Appeal
Brief dated Nov. 14, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) 10–15. First, Appellant argues
that Bederna does not teach an embodiment with five plies where the angles
of the reinforcement cords are described for each ply. Id. at 13. Appellant
acknowledges that the paragraph quoted above describes a five-ply
arrangement but asserts that “there is no description of the five different
angle tilt degrees for the reinforcements of the five layers.” Id.
This is not persuasive. The Examiner determines that Bederna
teaches a tire construction where “layers 17 and 13 . . . are inclined in a first,
same direction and (b) layers 15 and 16 . . . are inclined in a second, same
direction that is different from said first direction.” Answer 3. This is
supported by Figures 4 and 6 and by Paragraph 43 of Bederna. The
Examiner further finds that a “fair reading of Bederna suggests that the first
direction can be to the left or to the right and the second direction can be to
the left or to the right – it is simply required that respective directions cross
one another.” Id. at 3–4. The Examiner similarly determines that “[t]here
Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
7

are only two possible arrangements and a fair reading of Bederna suggests
the use of a right-right-0-left-left arrangement or a left-left-0-right-right
arrangement.” Id. at 4. This is further supported by claim 1 of Bederna
which specifies that the inner reinforcements of ply 13 have “an opposite
axial inclination” to those of ply 15 but does not specify the orientation of
the inner or outer reinforcements. Bederna 5 (claim 1).
Bederna teaches the following angles of orientation for the
reinforcements found in each ply:
innermost ply 17, angle ϵ 45°–90° (Spec. ¶13, claim 7);
inner working ply 13, angle α 10°–45° (id. ¶ 6);
zero-degree ply 14, angle β 0°–5° (id. ¶ 6);
outer working ply 15, angle γ 10°–45° (id. ¶ 6); and,
outer ply 16, angle δ 10°–90°, preferably 15°–45° (id. ¶ 12, claim 6).

Appellant does not specifically dispute any of Bederna’s teachings.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that Bederna fails to teach the
claimed ply reinforcement angles.
Second, Appellant argues that claim 1 requires that the angle of the
reinforcements of the first ply must differ from the angle of the
reinforcements of the second ply. Appeal Br. 3–5. Similarly, Appellant
argues that the angle of the reinforcements of the fourth ply must differ from
the angle of the reinforcements of the fifth ply. Id.
Claim 1 includes numerical limitations regarding the required slope of
the reinforcements for the first, third and fifth plies. Specifically, the claim
requires that the reinforcements of the first ply have an angle of 35°–70°, the
reinforcements of the third ply have an angle of 0° and those of the fifth ply
Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
8

have an angle of 35°–70°. Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims App.). Claim 1
additionally requires
the respective sets of reinforcements of said first and
second belt plies lying adjacent one side of said 0° ply running
upward at respective positive slopes and the respective sets of
reinforcements of said fourth and fifth belt plies lying
adjacent the other side of said 0° ply running upward at
respective negative slopes;

* * *
wherein the reinforcements of the reinforcement sets of
said fourth and fifth belt plies run upward to the right;
wherein the reinforcements of the reinforcement sets of
first and second belt plies run upward to the left.2

Id. (emphasis added). Appellant argues that the use of the plural “slopes”
requires that the first and second slopes (of the angle of the ply
reinforcements) must differ from one another. Reply Br. 4. We do not
adopt this construction. During examination, claim terms must be given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In
re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
An applicant seeking a narrower construction must either show why the
broader construction is unreasonable or amend the claim to expressly state
the scope intended. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

2 There is some ambiguity as to whether the limitation requiring the
reinforcements of the “fourth and fifth belt plies run upward to the right” is
consistent with the limitation requiring “reinforcements of said fourth and
fifth belt plies . . . running upward at respective negative slopes.” There is
similar ambiguity regarding whether the “upward to the left” limitation
applicable to the first and second plies is consistent with the “upward at
respective positive slopes” limitation. We do not further consider this issue
in the present decision.
Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
9

The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is that the slope
angles of the reinforcements of plies 1 and 2 may differ or be the same as
long as the reinforcements slope in a similar direction. This is also true of
plies 4 and 5. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in this regard.

Dependent Claims
Appellant includes a brief assertion that “[d]ependent claims 3, 4, and
6 further define the angle of tilt of the reinforcements of the plies lying
between the middle-most ply and the outermost plies.” Appeal Br. 12. This
is inadequate to present an issue for appeal. See 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(“the brief shall contain . . . . The arguments of appellant with respect to
each ground of rejection, and the basis therefor, with citations of the statutes,
regulations, authorities, and parts of the Record relied on. The arguments
shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection
contested by appellant.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.”).
To further prosecution, we offer the following regarding the
dependent claims at issue. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further
requires that “said angle φ is at least 43°.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
This refers to the angle of the reinforcements found in the fifth (outermost)
ply. An overlapping range (10°– 90°) is taught by Bederna. See Bederna ¶
12, claim 6.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further requires that angles β and δ
“lie in a range of 14° to 30°.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). An overlapping
Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
10

range for each angle is taught by Bederna. See Bederna ¶ 6 (teaching angles
ranging from 10°– 45° for the reinforcements found in the second and fourth
plies).
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 which is presently canceled. Appeal
Br. 19 (Claims App.). For purposes of this decision, we regard claim 6 as
depending from claim 1. Claim 6 requires that “angle α is at least 43°.” Id.
Angle α defines the orientation of the reinforcements of the first ply relative
to a circumferential direction. Bederna teaches a range of 45°– 90° for the
orientation of the reinforcements of the first ply. See Bederna ¶ 13, claim 7.
Appellant relies on the foregoing arguments in asserting error in the
rejection of the remaining dependent claims. Appeal Br. 15. As we have
not found such arguments persuasive, we determine that Appellant has not
shown reversible error in the rejection of any claim.

CONCLUSION

In view of the reasoning set forth in the Final Action, the Examiner’s
Answer, and above, the Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–11 103 Bederna, Kanehira,
Uniroyal
1, 3–11
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11

Appeal 2019-002461
Application 14/997,146
11

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED