Appeal No. 2004-0459
Serial No. 09/652,997
pages 3-4). The present application is a continuation-in-part of
application no. 09/284,557, issued as patent no. 6,386,252. Both
the ‘252 patent and O’Brien are continuations-in-part of
application no. 08/733,676, issued as patent no. 5,788,335.5 The
first disclosure of forming a chamber using a non-adhering film is
in the present application filed August 31, 2000. Hence, O’Brien,
which was issued on September 22, 1998, more than one year before
the filing date of the present application, is prior art under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103.
The appellants argue that Honda, Kuan, Harrington and Case
have nothing to do with forming an expandable chamber which is
located under a tread portion and is used to expand and retract
that tread portion (brief, pages 9-10). This argument is
deficient in that the appellants are attacking the references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871,
882 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58, 159 USPQ 725,
728 (CCPA 1968). The expandable chamber under a tread portion is
disclosed by O’Brien (col. 3, lines 2-14).
5 An inspection of the ‘252 and ‘335 patents shows that the
Patent and Trademark Office records which state that the present
application is a continuation of application no. 09/248,557 and
that application no. 09/248,557 is a continuation of application
no. 08/733,676 are incorrect.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007