Appeal No. 1999-1835
Application No. 08/654,976
The examiner's basic position is succinctly stated as
follows:
In claim 8, "the density of sipes in the at least
one area is larger than the density of sipes in the at
least one other area" reads on the arrangement of
sipes disclosed by Yamaguchi et al in each block for
the second and fourth block rows since a
circumferential line passing through a central area
(this area having more hard rubber due to the hard
inner rubber layer 3B "invading" into the soft outer
rubber layer) crosses four sipes whereas a
circumferential line in another area at an edge region
(this line having less hard rubber since the side wall
of the block is mainly composed of the soft rubber)
crosses two sipes.
(Id. at page 6.) We agree.
As we discussed at the outset, the term "area," in its
broadest reasonable meaning, encompasses any area without any
limitation to its size or precise location. Under these
circumstances, we uphold the examiner's determination that
Yamaguchi describes each and every limitation recited in
appealed claim 8.
The appellants argue as follows:
The '765 patent [Yamaguchi] does not disclose
that, in the second and fourth rows of blocks shown in
Fig. 1, the ratio of the volume of hard rubber to soft
rubber is higher in the central region than in the
side region. Specifically, Fig. 2 of the '765 patent
is a cross-sectional view taken along plane II of Fig.
1. Only a side region of each of the second and
fourth rows of blocks is actually represented in Fig.
2, i.e., a left side region of the second row of
blocks and a right side region of the fourth row of
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007