The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 25, 2021

2020006731 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2021)

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.
15/689,234 08/29/2017 James Christopher KISH GYP2016-314 6814
27280 7590 10/25/2021
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
200 Innovation Way
AKRON, OH 44316-0001
EXAMINER
ROY, DEBJANI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2021 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):
kathleen.swisher@goodyear.com
pair_goodyear@firsttofile.com
patents@goodyear.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES CHRISTOPHER KISH
Appeal 2020-006731
Application 15/689,234
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–15. 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 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed March 13,
2020, 1.
Appeal 2020-006731
Application 15/689,234

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention recited in the claims on appeal relates to a pneumatic
tire, and, more specifically, to a bead structure of a pneumatic tire.
Specification (“Spec.”) filed August 29, 2017, ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A pneumatic tire having a rotational axis comprising:
a carcass ply extending from one bead structure to
another bead structure, each bead structure comprising a
plurality of circumferentially wound metal wires surrounding a
bead core, the bead core having a planar upper surface, a planar
lower surface, and two curved side surfaces,
the planar upper surface and the planar lower surface
both defining cylindrical rings having rotational axes coincident
with a rotating axis of the pneumatic tire, the planar upper
surface and the planar lower surface each defining planes
parallel to the rotational axis, an aspect ratio of a cross-section
of the bead core being a ratio of a radial bead section height to a
radial bead section width, the aspect ratio being less than 1.0,
the planar upper surface and the planar lower surface having
equal axial widths to define a symmetrical cross-section for the
bead core,
the planar upper surface, the planar lower surface, and
the two curved side surfaces forming a complete circumference
of the cross-section of the bead core.
Independent claim 9 recites a bead of a pneumatic tire having a
rotational axis, wherein the bead is substantially as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2020-006731
Application 15/689,234

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Maus et al. (“Maus”) US 8,622,106 B1 Jan. 7, 2014
Grisin et al. (“Grisin”) US 2010/0006201 A1 Jan. 14, 2010
Kajimura JP 05-085111 A Apr. 6, 1993
Naruse JP 2004-058823 A Feb. 26, 2004
Alan Neville Gent and Joseph D. Walter, PNEUMATIC TIRE, Dept. of Mech.
Eng’g, Paper 854 (2006), http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/mechanical_
ideas/854 (“Gent”).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 1, 9, and 10 as unpatentable over Kajimura in view of
Gent and Naruse;
2. Claims 2, 4–6, and 12–14 as unpatentable over Kajimura in
view of Gent and Naruse, and further in view of Grisin; and
3. Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 as unpatentable over Kajimura in view
of Gent and Naruse, and further in view of Maus.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering
Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections for substantially
Appeal 2020-006731
Application 15/689,234

4
the fact findings, reasoning, and conclusions set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer, which we adopt as our own. We offer the following for emphasis.
The only issue before us in this appeal is whether Naruse teaches a
bead core having a cross-section as recited in claims 1 and 9 (i.e., planar
upper and lower surfaces, and two curved side surfaces forming a complete
circumference of the core’s cross-section). We answer this question in the
affirmative and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
Appellant argues that neither of Naruse’s Figures 2A or 2C discloses
such a cross-section. Appeal Br. 3. Appellant asserts that Naruse’s Figure
2A discloses a bead core with one continuously curved oval surface forming
the complete core cross-section, whereas Figure 2C discloses four curved
and four planar surfaces forming the complete core cross-section. Id.
In response, the Examiner determines that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “two curved side surfaces,” as recited in claims 1 and 9,
includes surfaces having both flat and curved sections, i.e., includes at least
one curved part or section. Ans. 9. The Examiner also notes that claims 1
and 9 fail to limit the “curved side surfaces” such that the side surfaces are
continuously curved or are defined by an arc with a single radius of
curvature. Id. The Examiner finds that because Naruse’s Figure 2C core
comprises two side surfaces, each of which includes curved sections,
Naruse’s core has a cross-sectional profile meeting the limitations of claims
1 and 9. Id.
We begin, appropriately, with the claim’s words, specifically, the
words of the limitation at issue. See Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316
F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that anticipation and
obviousness require comparison of the properly construed claims to the
Appeal 2020-006731
Application 15/689,234

5
available prior art); Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239
F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Only when a claim is properly
understood can a determination be made . . . whether the prior art anticipates
and/or renders obvious the claimed invention.”). During examination, claim
terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 488
F.3d 982, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not
whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad
reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not
simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the
specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what
and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e. an interpretation that is consistent with the
specification.
In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Appellant does not respond to or otherwise address either the
Examiner’s claim interpretation or the application of Naruse to claims 1 and
9 in light of this interpretation. Nor does Appellant proffer an alternative
interpretation of “curved side surfaces” as recited in claims 1 and 9. The
Specification also fails to define “curved side surface[]” or otherwise limit
its meaning in a manner divergent from the Examiner’s interpretation. For
example, we note that the Specification contains a single reference to
“curved side surfaces” without explicating further into the scope and
meaning of this feature. Spec. ¶ 7. In this regard, we note the Specification
has an extensive “Definitions” section (id. ¶¶ 28–94), yet provides no
description elucidating the limitation at issue. Appellant’s Figures 1 and 2
Appeal 2020-006731
Application 15/689,234

6
provide one depiction of such curved side surfaces, but the Specification
indicates that these are “non-limiting examples.” Id. ¶ 22. Therefore, we are
satisfied that the Examiner’s interpretation of “curved side surfaces” as
extending to side surfaces composed of upper and lower curved surfaces
connected by a flat or planar surface is reasonable.
In applying this broadest reasonable interpretation to Naruse, we note
that there is no dispute that Naruse’s bead core cross-section includes four
planar surfaces and four curved surfaces. Compare Ans. 9 (Naruse’s Fig. 2C
“depicts a bead core which includes flat upper and lower surfaces and two
side surfaces each of which comprise curved edge sections and a flat center
section.”) with Appeal Br. 3 (Naruse’s Fig. 2C “discloses a bead core with
four curved surfaces and four planar surfaces.”). Applying the Examiner’s
interpretation, each of Naruse’s curved side surfaces encompasses two of
these curved surfaces and one of the planar surfaces, thereby meeting the
limitation at issue.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 1–7 and 9–15.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7
and 9–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of
Kajimura, Gent, and Naruse, alone or further in view of Grisin or Maus, is
affirmed.
Appeal 2020-006731
Application 15/689,234

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 10 103 Kajimura, Gent,
Naruse
1, 9, 10
2, 4–6, 12–
14
103 Kajimura, Gent,
Naruse, Grisin
2, 4–6, 12–
14

3, 7, 11, 15 103 Kajimura, Gent,
Naruse, Maus
3, 7, 11, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–15

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED