Appeal No. 2001-2495
Application No. 09/110,876
the tire” disclosed by EP ‘230 or Lagnier (page 8 of principal
brief, penultimate paragraph). Appellant has attached Appendix C
to the brief to support this argument. However, the graph of
Appendix C has not been submitted in declaration form and,
therefore, is of little probative value. Furthermore, inasmuch
as the appealed claims do not preclude the sipe configuration of
EP ‘230, this argument is not germane to the claimed subject
matter.
We are also unpersuaded by appellant’s argument that EP ‘230
does not suggest the claimed at least four sipings. Appellant
focuses upon the 3 sipings depicted in Figure 5 of EP ‘230.
However, we concur with the examiner that the reference teaches
the use of a plurality of sipings and is not limited to the three
sipings exemplified in Figure 5. Significantly, the reference
establishes the number of sipings as a result effective variable
by disclosing that “[d]epending on the purpose of the tire, one
provides a larger or smaller number of fine incisions; for
example, for good snow traction, it is important to put a large
number of fine incisions in the thread strip” (page 2 of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007