Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
finding of a directional tread pattern disclosure in EP ‘332
completely vitiates the Appellant’s above noted argument and,
for this reason alone, renders it unpersuasive.
In addition to the foregoing, the Appellant argues that
appealed claim 1 requires at least one sipe on each of the blocks
of the here claimed tire including the blocks which are chamfered.
According to the Appellant, the applied prior art would not have
suggested providing each block of the EP ‘332 tire with at
least one sipe. As previously indicated, however, we share the
Examiner’s viewpoint that the claim 1 requirement at clause (4)
“each of the blocks is provided with at least one sipe” relates
to the blocks previously recited in clause (2) and not to the
blocks subsequently recited in clause (5). From our perspective,
the disclosures in the subject specification (e.g., see lines
21-24 on page 10) and drawing are consistent with the Examiner’s
interpretation (and inconsistent with the claim construction urged
by the Appellant). See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As so interpreted, the independent claim before us defines a
sipe feature which is met by the element 10a feature of the EP ‘332
tire. This is because the 10a “sipes” are provided in the blocks
located in the side zones as required by clauses (2) and (4) of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007