Appeal No. 2004-0459
Serial No. 09/652,997
The appellants argue that “[a] tire manufacturer looking to
resolve the problem of producing selective tread expansion
chambers would not find an incentive for accomplishing that task
from a disclosure that provides internal sealant-containing
pockets for sealing punctures” (brief, page 9), but do not provide
any evidence or reasoning in support of this argument. Because
Honda, Kuan, Harrington and Case disclose that placing an anti-
adhesive sheet between rubber layers of a tire to prevent them
from adhering to each other during vulcanization is an effective
method for forming a chamber, they would have fairly suggested, to
one of ordinary skill in the art, using such a method to form
O’Brien’s chamber.
The appellants argue that Honda, Kuan and Harrington do not
indicate that their methods are separate from vulcanization and
are compatible with vulcanization (reply brief, pages 5-6). As
discussed above, each of these references discloses that the anti-
adhesive sheet is placed between rubber layers prior to
vulcanization.
The appellants argue that “Case is devoid of any teaching of
a chamber or pocket of any kind much less an on demand expandable-
contractible chamber” (reply brief, page 7). O’Brien is relied
upon by the examiner for a disclosure of an expandable-
contractible chamber. Case is relied upon by the examiner for a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007