Ex Parte Pons

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

14522966 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/522,966 10/24/2014 Frederic Michel-Jean Pons
27280 7590 09/04/2018
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
200 Innovation Way
AKRON, OH 44316-0001
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.
DN2014-016 4769
EXAMINER
FISCHER, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
kathleen.swisher@goodyear.com
patents@ good year.com
pair_goodyear@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERIC MICHEL-JEAN PONS
Appeal2017---009082
Application 14/522,966 1
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, RAEL YNN P. GUEST, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The applicant and real party in interest is Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017---009082
Application 14/522,966
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
According to the Specification, Appellant's invention relates to a
pneumatic tire with improved gripping force on a frozen or snow-covered
road surface. (Spec ,r 1 ). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A tread for a pneumatic tire comprising:
a plurality of trapezoidal channels, each trapezoidal channel
extending circumferentially from a first end to a second end, the
first end being wider than the second end;
a sipe extending laterally adjacent the second ends of the
trapezoidal channels; and
a plurality of rectangular channels, each rectangular channel
extending circumferentially from a first end to a second end, the
first ends of the rectangular channels being adjacent the sipe,
the sipe being circumferentially aligned with both the second
ends of the trapezoidal channels and the first ends of the
rectangular channels.
Appellant requests review of the following rejection (App. Br. 4, 7)
from the Examiner's final office action:
Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Fontaine
(EP 1,127,716 Al; published Aug. 29, 2001).
OPINION
The dispositive issue on appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that Fontaine would have led one skilled in the art to a
pneumatic tire construction comprising tread blocks having a plurality of
2
Appeal2017---009082
Application 14/522,966
trapezoidal channels, a plurality of rectangular channels and a sipe that is
circumferentially aligned with both the second ends of the trapezoidal
channels and the first ends of the rectangular channels as required by the
subject matter of independent claims 1 and 3?
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we REVERSE the prior art rejection for the reasons presented by
the Appellant and add the following.
We refer to the final office action for a statement of the Examiner's
rejection (Final Act. 2-3).
The Examiner states:
As best depicted in Figure 2, Fontaine teaches a tire
construction comprising tread blocks, wherein a plurality of
tread blocks include a plurality of trapezoidal channels 130,
230, a plurality of rectangular channels 232 (those that extend
from end 228 of tread block 124, 224), and a sipe 232 that
extends across the entire axial extent of said tread block.
(Id. at 2).
The Examiner determined that the description of Figure 2, which
exhibits a sipe separated from the channels, is merely exemplary. (Id.). The
Examiner further determined that in Fontaine the respective ends of the
trapezoidal channels and rectangular channels can circumferentially overlap
one another or can be arranged at the same for circumferential location.
(Id.). The Examiner concludes:
It is emphasized that Fontaine generally teaches the inclusion of
an axial extending sipe without limitation in regards to the
exact circumferential location of said sipe and applicant has not
provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results to
establish a criticality for the claimed arrangement.
3
Appeal2017---009082
Application 14/522,966
(Id. at 3).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not articulated a proper
conclusion of obviousness supported by facts and rational underpinnings.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection is based on hindsight and
fails to include a factual basis and only provides unsupported conclusory
statements. (App. Br. 5).
We agree with Appellant. During examination, the Examiner bears
the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "Rejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)); see also, Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands,
Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[T]he analysis that 'should be
made explicit' refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to
combine, but to the court's analysis."). The Examiner contends it would
have been obvious to modify Fontaine's tire tread to contain blocks wherein
the sipe is circumferentially aligned with both the second ends of the
trapezoidal channels and the first ends of the rectangular channels.
However, the Examiner has failed to provide a reason supported by evidence
why this arrangement would have been obvious. The Examiner has failed to
explain where Fontaine describes the desirability of forming tire tread blocks
wherein the sipe is circumferentially aligned with both the second ends of
4
Appeal2017---009082
Application 14/522,966
the trapezoidal channels and the first ends of the rectangular channels. The
Examiner's discussion of the Fontaine's disclosed range of dimensions of
the trapezoidal and rectangular channels (Ans. 3) does not necessarily
suggest that the ends of these respective channels should meet at a sipe as
required by the claimed invention.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief, we determine
that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is not supported by facts.
"Where the legal conclusion [of obviousness] is not supported by facts it
cannot stand." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 over Fontaine is
reversed.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fontaine is reversed.
REVERSED
5