Appeal No. 2002-1026 Page 8
Application No. 09/239,403
the material and specifications taught by Matsuki ‘167 to achieve improved
characteristics” (Paper No. 11, page 4). Notably absent, however, is an explanation by
the examiner of how the teachings of Matsuki render obvious each of the limitations
recited in the claims against which it is applied, such as the Shore D hardness of claims
2, 3, 11 and 12, the diene polymer and ionomer of claims 4-6, 11 and 12-14, and the
filler material of claims 7-10. In any event, our evaluation of Matsuki leads us to
conclude that the teachings set forth therein do not overcome the shortcoming
discussed above with regard to claim 1, from which these claims depend, and therefore
we will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-15 and 17.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 4 and 16 as being unpatentable over Yabuki is not
sustained.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-15 and 17 as being unpatentable over Yabuki in
view of Matsuki is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007