Appeal No. 2004-0461
Application No. 09/532,371
Independent claim 14 recites that the phosphorescent layer is
"substantially free of rubber." Claim 25, the other independent
claim on appeal, recites that the "phosphorescent layer is a
phosphorescent pigment or a blend comprising a phosphorescent
pigment and a carrier . . . wherein said carrier is substantially
free of rubber." According to appellants, "the glow-in-the-dark
tire of the present invention offers a safety tire which can be
more easily seen in low visibility or nighttime conditions when
compared to conventional tires without a phosphorescent layer"
(page 3 of principal brief, second paragraph).
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
(a) claims 14 and 25 over Rogal in view of Kanenari, Kubota
and De Young;
(b) claims 15-20, 26-29 and 33 over the references stated in
(a) above further in view of Majumdar;
(c) claims 21, 30, 31 and 36 over the references stated in
(a) above further in view of Shimizu and Anderson;
(d) claims 32 and 37 over the references stated in (c) above
further in view of either Santilli, Pollard or Nguyen; and
(e) claims 34 and 35 over the references stated in (a) above
further in view of Smith and Fukumoto.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007