Appeal No. 2002-1320
Application 09/027,776
to support a solid tire. The Examiner has not directed us to evidence that section 2,
that includes locking flange 4, would function to resiliently support both axial and end
sections as required by the claimed invention. Moreover, we have not been directed
to evidence that the ring torus of section 2 would maintain a bowl-shaped cross
section during an emergency roll.
The rejection over the Hockman reference is reversed.
The Examiner asserts, Answer, page 5, “[t]he reference [Lavanchy] shows a
tire with several bowl shaped sections. It has radially outer sections, is insertable into
a pneumatic tire, is capable of supporting that tire during an emergency roll, maintains
its bowl sections during the roll, and has 2 support elements. (Figures 2-4) The claim
does not require only one bowl shaped section.”
The Examiner has not appropriately characterized the Lavanchy reference.
Lavanchy describes a flexible metallic tire which is a replacement for a pneumatic
tire. (Col. 1, ll. 7 to 10). The Examiner has not directed us to evidence that the
flexible metallic tire would function as required by the claimed invention. Moreover,
we have not been directed to evidence that the flexible metallic tire would be capable
of supporting a direct load from a pneumatic tire and maintain a bowl-shaped cross
section during an emergency roll.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007