Appeal No. 2005-0704
Application No. 09/812,293
green tires of appellant and JP ‘104 reasonably appear to be
substantially the same. In addition to agreeing with the
examiner’s reasoned analysis that the reference lamination of
still hot elastomeric sheets results in a merging of the sheets
that is indistinguishable from a single sheet, we find that Fig.
2 of JP ‘104 suggests a body ply that is essentially a single
elastomeric sheet. We note that the English translation of JP
‘104 describes rubber 6 of Fig. 2 as a “monolayer” (see paragraph
0014, penultimate line). As stated by the examiner, appellant
has not carried his burden of proffering objective evidence
which establishes that an extruded body ply within the scope of
the appealed claims is substantially different than the body ply
fairly taught by JP ‘104. Also, while appellant directs our
attention to the fact that the appealed claims are directed to a
“green tire” that is formed without the heat of vulcanization,
the fact remains that the final product, a vulcanized tire, would
seem to have essentially the same structure for the relevant body
ply whether formed by extrusion or lamination.
Inasmuch as we have affirmed the examiner’s § 102 rejection,
it logically follows that we will sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejections. It is well settled that anticipation is the epitome
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007