Ex Parte O'Brien et al - Page 6



          Appeal No. 2004-0459                                                        
          Serial No. 09/652,997                                                       
          rubber (12) to prevent a portion (5b) of the packing sheet from             
          being bonded to the inner liner rubber when the tire is vulcanized          
          (pages 6, 8-10, 12, 13).                                                    
               Kuan discloses forming a pocket which is attached to the               
          sidewall of a tire and contains a lubricant (abstract).  The                
          pocket is formed by Harrington’s method (Harrington, col. 2, lines          
          53-68) wherein a strip of release material which conforms to the            
          width and length of the pocket is placed between inner liners               
          before the tire is vulcanized (Kuan, col. 2, lines 17-39).                  
               Case discloses a method for preventing a tire tread inner              
          layer (3) from adhering to an inner tube (6) during vulcanization           
          by placing between the tread inner layer and the tube a fabric              
          which will not bond to the inner layer during vulcanization                 
          (page 1, lines 57-66).                                                      
               The teachings of Honda, Kuan, Harrington and Case would have           
          fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, placing an           
          anti-adhesive sheet on the lower surface of O’Brien’s indented              
          tire segment around its circumference prior to vulcanization so             
          that the surface under the anti-adhesive sheet does not bond to             
          the rubber above the sheet during vulcanization and that                    
          therefore, the desired chamber is formed.                                   
               The appellants argue that O’Brien is a parent of the present           
          application and is not prior art (brief, pages 6-8; reply brief,            
                                           6                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007