Appeal No. 1999-1835
Application No. 08/654,976
The examiner counters as follows:
Appellant's [sic] argument that Benson et al uses ribs
instead of blocks are [sic, is] not persuasive since
each of blocks of Yamaguchi et al and ribs of Benson
are raised tread elements...[On]e of ordinary skill in
the art would readily expect to the both [sic] the
sipes tread of Yamaguchi et al and the slots Benson to
be subjected to "centrifugal and tractive forces"
since (1) the tread of each of Yamaguchi et al and
Benson et al are provided as part of a tire which in
its intended use rotates on the ground and (2) the
sipes in Yamaguchi et al and the slots of Benson are
narrow width recesses which extend across a portion of
a land portion.
(Examiner's answer, pages 18-19.)
As discussed by the appellants (reply brief, page 5), we do
not think that the examiner's observations that the blocks and
ribs of the two references are both raised, rotate on the
ground, and have narrow width recesses are sufficient to
establish the requisite motivation, suggestion, or teaching to
combine the two references in the manner as suggested by the
examiner. Here, the appellants have challenged the very
foundation of the examiner's position by asserting that tires
having ribs, as in Benson, are subject to completely different
forces and stresses relative to tires having island block
portions, as in Yamaguchi. Under these circumstances, it was
incumbent upon the examiner to supply acceptable reasoning or
evidence that would indicate that tires having ribs and tires
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007