Appeal No. 96-2779
Application 08/151,944
ground, as called for in the last paragraph of claim 9.
The apparatus called for in dependent claims 10, 11 and
13 would also result from providing the tire of Bruess on an
automobile. The subject matter of claim 12, wherein the
graphic elements are recessed within the outer surface, is
considered to be an obvious alternative to that which is
disclosed in Bruess, wherein the graphic elements are raised
upon the outer surface of the tire.
As to method claim 1, it would further have been obvious
to drive an automobile equipped with a tire like that of
Bruess on soft compliant ground. The resulting method
correspond to the method of claim 1 in all respects, in our
view.
Concerning method claim 3, in light of appellant’s
disclosure on page 3 of the specification that it is
conventional to comb a beach with a rake in preparation for
the day’s use, it would also have been obvious to drive a
vehicle equipped with a tire like that of Bruess on a freshly
combed sandy beach. The resulting method would correspond to
the method of claims 3 and 5.
Summary
-13-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007