Appeal No. 1999-1835
Application No. 08/654,976
is open to the groove and each of whose other end is closed as
being an alternative forms [sic] for sipes." (Id. at page 15.)
Based on these prior art teachings, the examiner determined
that the subject matter of appealed claim 13 would have been
prima facie obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(Id.) We agree.
The appellants argue that JP '917 does not disclose a tire
manufactured by vulcanized molding using a mold. (Appeal brief,
page 31.) As we discussed above, however, the appealed claims
are directed to a tire and not a molding process.
The appellants allege that JP '917 does not disclose "that
the blade forms a lateral sipe at a substantially uniform
depth..." (Id.) On this point, we agree with the examiner's
analysis. (Examiner's answer, page 22.) Here, the appellants
do not point to any part of the present specification that would
indicate that the term "substantially uniform depth" would not
encompass the depths shown in JP '917.
The appellants urge that there is no motivation to combine
the references because these references do not disclose the
problem solved by the present invention. (Appeal brief, pages
31-32.) As we discussed above, however, the motivation for
19
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007