Appeal No. 2003-0332
Application 09/057,383
The subject matter of claim 1 does not specify a relationship for angles A and
B. In other words, the claimed subject matter does not preclude the angles A and B
from being constant throughout the widthwise or transverse direction.
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner’s rejection thus is predicated on taking
these continuous grooves [block rows between circumferential grooves 2] and
considering only a portion of them which, in the Examiner’s view, are relatively
straight given the depiction in Figure 3. (Reply Brief, p. 3).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The subject matter of claim 1
describes the invention by describing the characteristics of two block rows and not the
entire tread design. Moreover, the claimed invention does not preclude curved
groves. (See above).
After reviewing the totality of the evidence before us, including consideration
of Appellant’s arguments, it is our determination that Shiraishi describes subject
matter that anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. See In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (“To anticipated a claim, a prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.”)
The Examiner also rejected the subject matter of claims 1 to 4, 9 to 11, 16, 17,
19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Shiraishi, Williams and
Miller. The Examiner added the Miller and Williams references to establish that a
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007