Appeal No. 2003-0332
Application 09/057,383
Appellant argues that Shiraishi’s average angle $ of the inclined grooves is not
constant, as is the case with ", because the transverse grooves are curved. Thus,
Shiraishi does not anticipate the claimed invention. (Brief, p. 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As stated above, claim 1 does
not require the grooves to be straight. The claim specifies that the angles for the first
and second block rows are substantially equal. This language allows for some
variance in the angle. Shiraishi discloses the average angle $ of the individual
sections for the inclined grooves in the common direction may be set at the constant
angle " and preferably vary by ± 3o. (Col. 3, ll. 46-50).
Appellant argues that claim 1 defines a relationship of angles A and B which is
different from the angle $ in Shiraishi. Specifically, “[t]he angle A of one row and
the circumferential direction in a corresponding angle B on the other row in a
circumferential direction are made substantially equal to each other at one pair of
blocks of one pair of the circumferential rows. This means that the angles A and B of
the present invention are not intended to have a substantially constant angle value
such as the value " of Shiraishi throughout the widthwise or transverse direction.”
(Brief, p. 11).
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007