Appeal 2007-0163
Application 10/318,898
The dispositive question is whether the prior art references relied upon
by the Examiner would have suggested employing the claimed tread radius
for the truck tire suggested by Young, Nakamura, and Travers. On this
record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
As is apparent from its column 5, lines 35-42, Young teaches the
tread radius recited in claims 5 and 11. Thus, as pointed out by the
Appellants at page 9 of the Brief, Ohya is cumulative to the prior art
references relied upon by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that the combined
disclosures of Young, Nakamura, Ohya, and optionally Travers would have
rendered the subject matter defined by claims 5 and 11 obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
For the findings set forth in the Answer and above, the decision of the
Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
clj
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Intellectual Property Dept. 823
1144 East Market St.
Akron, OH 44316-0001
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: September 9, 2013