Appeal No. 2003-1181
Application No. 09/755,575
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,2
to the applied prior art Granryd reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations which
follow.
In maintaining the rejection of claims 1, 3, 8 through 10,
13 through 16, 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Granryd, the examiner has urged that the traction
enhancing assembly (10) of Granryd, e.g., as seen in Figures 3a
and 3b, corresponds to that defined by appellant in the above-
enumerated claims. In that regard, the examiner has concluded
that the traction bar (11) of Granryd, described therein as being
"made from the casing of a truck or bus tire, which has been cut
transversely into a radial segment" (col. 5, lines 49-51), is "an
2 It appears to us that the subject matter of dependent
claim 8 was incorporated by appellant into claim 1 on appeal in
the amendment filed March 4, 2002 (Paper No. 3) and that the
examiner should, during any further prosecution of this
application, ascertain exactly how claim 8 would be considered to
further limit independent claim 1.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007