Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
translation, second paragraph). In addition, JP ‘604 and JP ‘514
evinces what is acknowledged by appellant, namely, that it was
known in the art at the time of filing the present application to
employ four sipings in the land portions of a pneumatic tire.
Appellant submits at page 10 of the principal brief that
comparative test data demonstrates the superiority of the
invention to tires which conform substantially to JP ‘604 and JP
‘514, which appellant characterizes as the closest prior art. We
agree with the examiner, however, that the comparative data is of
little probative value inasmuch as JP ‘604 and JP ‘514 have not
been established as the closest prior art. In our view, Figure 5
of EP ‘230, which depicts sipings having first and second linear
portions connected by a sloping line portion, is closer prior art
than the sipings of JP ‘604 and JP ‘514. Also, appellant has not
refuted the examiner’s position that “[t]he evidence is not
commensurate in scope with the claims since the claims fail to
require unitary sipe configuration evenly spaced throughout the
block pattern in which the number of sipes does not change from a
new tire condition through various stages of wear” (page 19 of
answer, first paragraph).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007