Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
In support of his nonobviousness position, the Appellant
argues that the chamfer feature in the directional tire patterns of
EP ‘718 and JP ‘025 are not applicable to the non-directional tire
pattern shown in Figure 1 of EP ‘332. Concerning this matter, the
Appellant criticizes the Examiner by contending that “[n]ever once
does the Examiner face up to the fundamental recognition between
directional and non-directional tread patterns and differences in
construction that flow from those divisible tread patterns” (reply
brief, page 9). This criticism is inappropriate.
This is because the Examiner has repeatedly explained that
the EP ‘332 disclosure at lines 41-45 on page 10 describes a tread
pattern alternative (with respect to the pattern shown in Figure 1)
which is directional (i.e., like the patterns of EP ‘718 and
JP ‘025). See, for example, the last six lines in the paragraph
bridging pages 7 and 8 of the answer and the last three lines in
the paragraph bridging pages 15 and 16 of the answer. This finding
by the Examiner has not been even acknowledged much less
contested by the Appellant in the brief and reply brief. These
circumstances compel us to accept the Examiner’s finding as
factually correct. Moreover, as so accepted, the Examiner’s
3(...continued)
chamfer feature defined by appealed claim 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007