Appeal No. 2003-0332
Application 09/057,383
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 4, 9 to 11, 16, 17, 19 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Shiraishi.
We note that Shiraishi describes a prior art tire that has straight grooves.
Specifically, Shiraishi discloses “[t]he tire of the prior art was prepared with the same
groove area ratio, groove pitch and groove depth as those of the tire of the present
invention. This tire was cut to form in its tread surface: transverse grooves of straight
shape having an angle of 30o on the grounding center line with respect to its
circumferential direction in the running direction of the tire.” (Col. 4, l. 67 to
col. 5, l. 5).
Appellant argues that Shiraishi distinguishes itself from the prior art that uses
straight grooves. (Reply Brief, p. 3). Appellant’s argument is an admission that it
was known in the prior art to form tires that includes grooves of a straight shape. A
tire tread surface with transverse grooves of straight shape having a constant angle of
30o on the grounding center line would meet the requirements of the claimed
invention.
Notwithstanding the above description of the prior art, the Examiner asserts
that Shiraishi discloses a pneumatic tire that renders the claimed invention
unpatentable. Specifically, the Examiner states :
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007