Appeal No. 2002-1320
Application 09/027,776
The Examiner asserts that Osada ‘810, column 2, lines 39 to 42, discloses the
safety tire (flat protector) is composed of material which gives the safety tire
resiliency. (Answer, pp.7 and 15). This description describes the entire flat protector
14. Thus, it appears that the whole structure is resilient and the ring torus section
would not be rigid so as to maintain the bowl-shaped cross section during an
emergency roll. The Examiner has not adequately explained how a person skilled in
the art would have been motivated, from the descriptions of Osada ‘810 and
Hampshire, to form an support member 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 mere fact that the prior art could be modified as proposed by the
Examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections over the Osada ‘810 and Hampshire
references are reversed.
The Examiner combined the teachings of Brown with Hockman to reject the
subject matter of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse this rejection
because the teachings of Brown do not remedy the deficiencies identified in Hockman
supra.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007