Appeal No. 2001-0780
Application No. 08/997,368
Appellant’s independent claim. The Appellant’s point that no sipes
are provided in the blocks located in the central zone of the EP
‘332 tire is simply irrelevant since claim 1 contains no such
requirement when properly interpreted as explained previously. In
any case, like the Examiner, we conclude that it would have been
obvious for an artisan to provide the central zone blocks of EP
‘332 with sipes for the reasons thoroughly expressed in the answer.
In summary, it is our ultimate determination that the Examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness which the
Appellant has not successfully rebutted with argument and/or
evidence of nonobviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, we hereby
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of all appealed claims as
being unpatentable over EP ‘332 in view of EP ‘718 and JP ‘025 and
optionally either EP ‘685 or JP ‘215.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007