Appeal No. 94-3608
Application 07/844,980
(2) Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18 and 19 on the basis of the
references cited against claim 1 et al. above taken further in
view of Japanese '305.
(3) Claims 1 through 3, 8, 10, 13 through 15 and 22 through
25 on the basis of Greiner, the admitted prior art, Japanese '403
and British '048.
(4) Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18 and 19 on the basis of the
references cited against claim 1 et al. immediately above, taken
further in view of Japanese '305.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer and
Supplemental Answer.
The opposing viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
With reference to pages 2 and 3 of the appellants Brief, the
problem to which their invention is directed is described in the
following manner:
Heavy duty pneumatic radial tires are subject to
great wear and heat. To resist excessive wear, wear-
resistant rubber is generally employed in an upper
tread surface. To resist heat deformation, heat-
resistant rubber having a different modulus of
elasticity than the wear-resistant layer is generally
employed in a lower layer of the tread. Further, these
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007