Appeal No. 1996-1127
Application No. 07/975,587
We think it apparent, based on a review of Table I, that the carbon black recited in
claim 1 bears close relationship to the carbon black disclosed by Branan. If there is any
significant difference between these carbon black compositions, that difference could only
be found in comparing values for the )D50/Dmode ratio.
Appellants recognize that the issue centers on whether the claimed )D50/Dmode
ratio of 0.6 - 0.8 patentably distinguishes over the )D50/Dmode ratio of 0.8-1.05
disclosed by Branan. In the paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of the Appeal Brief,
appellants argue that “the )D50/Dmode ratios disclosed by Branan exceed the values
specified by the present claims, and the present specification, as advantageous for
passenger car tires (emphasis added)." This is factually incorrect because the claimed
range of 0.6 to 0.8 includes the lower limit of the )D50/Dmode ratio range disclosed in
column 3, line 36 of Branan. Appellants do not come to grips with this specific disclosure
of Branan, and do not appreciate that both ranges include the same end point, i.e., 0.8.
In the third full paragraph on page 5 of the Appeal Brief, appellants argue that
Branan teaches carbon blacks intended for use in trucks and bus tires; and that the
carbon blacks of the present invention, intended for use in passenger car tires, are
patentably distinguishable therefrom. We disagree. Appellants' argument to the contrary,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007