Appeal No. 1999-1835
Application No. 08/654,976
establish any secondary consideration of nonobviousness. Nor
have they presented any objective evidence to establish that the
tire of JP '108, or any other applied prior art, is incapable of
providing the same advantages. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The appellants further contend that the applied prior art
does not disclose a tire manufactured by vulcanizing molding
using a mold. (Appeal brief, page 29.) However, the appellants
do not dispute the examiner's assertion that pneumatic tires are
manufactured by vulcanizing molding. Hence, we see no reason
why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used
vulcanizing molding to manufacture the tire described in JP
'108.
The appellants argue that "JP 108 does not disclose that
the bent sipes shown in Fig. 8 are provided to increase the
strength of the blade that forms them." (Appeal brief, page
30.) But the mere fact that JP '108 may not disclose the same
reason for providing bent sipes as in the present invention does
not defeat the examiner's prima facie of obviousness. It is
sufficient that JP '108 describes a tire having bent sipes.
17
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007