Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex parte TANABE et al. - Page 10
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2001 > Ex parte TANABE et al. - Page 10
Appeal No. 1999-1835
Application No. 08/654,976
blocks, from left to right. Thus, even though more
sipes may extend in the central region of the second
and fourth rows of blocks as shown in Fig. 1 of the
'765 patent, Fig. 2 does not show that more hard
rubber is disposed in the central region than at the
side regions of the these [sic] blocks.
(Appeal brief, pages 21-22.)
We, like the examiner (examiner's answer, pages 6 and 16),
are not persuaded by the appellants' argument. On this point,
we note that circumferential groove (11A), which defines the
right edge of the second column of blocks in Figure 1, is shown
as being immediately to the right of rubber layers (3A) and (3B)
in Figure 2. But even if the appellants were correct in stating
that "[o]nly a side region of each of the second and fourth rows
[columns] of blocks is actually represented in Fig. 2," we again
point out that the term "area" is not limited to any particular
portion of the blocks shown in Figure 2.
The appellants urge that Yamaguchi does not provide the
advantages of the invention recited in appealed claim 8.
(Appeal brief, pages 22-23.) However, we agree with the
examiner's analysis that evidence of secondary considerations of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, cannot overcome an
anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Cf. In re
Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA
10
Page: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
