Appeal No. 2002-1320
Application 09/027,776
The rejection over the Lavanchy reference is reversed.
Rejections under 103(a)
The invention of claims 1, 18 and 21 require an emergency support body to
have a ring torus having axial end sections comprising radially outwardly arched
sections and an intermediate section coupling the axial end sections. Claims 1 and 18
disclose the ring torus is composed of a rigid material. Claim 21 discloses the ring
torus is constructed to maintain the bowl-shaped cross section during an emergency
roll. The claims also require the support elements to be arranged to resiliently support
both axial and end sections. Thus, the emergency support body comprises supporting
elements and a ring torus wherein the supporting elements are resilient and the ring
torus is rigid so as to maintain the bowl-shaped cross section during an emergency
roll.
The Examiner asserts the claimed invention is obvious over the combined
teachings of Osada ‘810 and Hampshire. Specifically, the Examiner states:
Osada et al ‘810 discloses an insert placed within a tire that has a tread,
sidewalls, carcass, reinforcing elements, beads and bead cores. This
insert has a rolling surface which supports the tire during an emergency
roll(16) and has two support elements(15). The rolling surface is the
radially exterior surface of a ring torus(Figure 2) which is formed of a
rigid material like spring steel or synthetic resin. (Col. 2, ll. 39-42) This
material causes the insert to have a suitable resiliency. (Col. 2, ll. 39-
42) The reference discloses the torus having axially exterior sections
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007