Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
OPINION
We adopt as our own the findings of fact, conclusions of law
and rebuttals to argument expressed by the Examiner in his well
reasoned answer. We add the following comments for emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner that the Appellant’s independent
claim distinguishes over EP ‘332 only by the requirement that
certain blocks be chamfered in accordance with the requirements of
clause (5). We also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it
would have been obvious for one with an ordinary level of skill
in this art to provide the corresponding blocks of EP ‘332 with a
chamfer of the type and for the reasons taught by EP ‘718 and
JP ‘025. In this way, the so-modified tire of EP ‘332 would
possess the chamfer advantages expressly taught by EP ‘718 and
JP ‘025. The resulting tire would fully satisfy each of the
requirements defined by the independent claim before us.3
3 We here observe that the Appellant in his brief and reply
brief describes the here claimed chamfer feature with terminology
which differs from the terminology which is used in the subject
specification including the appealed claims and which is used by
the Examiner in his answer. Like the Examiner, we
look with disfavor upon the Appellant’s use of terminology in
the brief and reply brief which is not consistent with the
terminology used in the specification and claims for the self
evident reason that such inconsistency pointlessly confounds the
record. In any event, we are confident that the chamfer feature
disclosed in EP ‘718 and JP ‘025 respectively corresponds to the
(continued...)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007