Appeal No. 1998-2985 3
Application No. 08/725,212
THE REJECTION
Claims 14, 16 through 18 and 23 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa in view of Kraft, Bohm, Bryant, the admitted
prior art, Poschel and optionally further in view of Gartland.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner, and agree with the appellant that the rejection of claims 14, 16 through
18 and 23 through 25) is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the
grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner relies
upon a combination of at least six references to reject the claimed subject matter and
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The rejection before us is predicated upon the combination of Hayakawa and
Kraft. It is the examiner’s position that while Hayakawa does not disclose the tire sidewall
having scuff resistant ribs, “it would have been obvious in the art to provide the tire
sidewall of Hayakawa et al[.] with spaced apart scuff resistant ribs because Kraft, directed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007