Appeal No. 2002-0466 4
Application No. 09/456,273
Answer, page 4. Hence the examiner concludes that, “it would be obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to formulate a tire according to Iwama in which the rubber
composition comprises elastomer and a carbon black having DBP value, tint value, and
CTAB value within the ranges recited in appellants’ claims and it is the Examiner’s position
that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a tire according to
Kikuchi in which the sidewall of the tire comprises a composition of elastomer and a carbon
black having DBP value, tint value and CTAB value within the scope of appellants’ claims.”
See Answer, page 3. We disagree.
Each of the independent claims before us requires that the claimed article, “is a
sidewall of a tire or a veneer thereof.” See claims 1, 33, and 47. The limitation is a
positive requirement of each of the independent claims before us. Accordingly, the
limitation must be disclosed or suggested by the references of record. Absent such a
teaching or suggestion, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
We find that Kikuchi as acknowledged by the examiner is directed to a rubber
composition for a tire tread. See Abstract. See also column 1, lines 7-12, column 2, lines
3-5, 54-56, column 3, lines 1-3, column 8, lines 19-33 and claims 1 to 4. We find no
suggestion or teaching for any portion of the tire other than a tire tread.
We find that Iwama teaches a rubber tire composition. See Abstract. We find that
the invention is directed to “a tire rubber composition, more specifically, to a tire tread
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007