Appeal No. 1999-0983
Application No. 08/782,891
discloses that "the present invention does not directly
concern . . . selection and location [of all the components
which the bead contains], but essentially proposes a new shape
for the inner edge of the bead." In our view, this disclosure
would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill that the tire
which appellant invented was not limited to containing a bead
wire, but rather contained a "carcass anchoring means," to the
extent that that term includes equivalents of a bead wire.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejection (2)-Indefiniteness
In this rejection, the examiner finds lack of compliance
with the second paragraph of § 112 on two grounds.
First, the examiner finds claim 17 to be indefinite
because "surface" (line 2) has no antecedent basis. Appellant
does not disagree, but rather agrees to amend the claim
appropriately (reply brief, page 1). This ground of the
rejection will therefore be summarily sustained.
Second, the examiner asserts that "what is included by
appellant's use of the term 'carcass anchoring means' other
than the bead wire cannot be determined in light of the
specification" (answer, page 5). We disagree. As discussed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007