Appeal No. 2004-0459
Serial No. 09/652,997
The appellants argue that Voekel’s air source provides for
external air input, is mounted separately, and is nonrotatable
relative to the rotatable tire (brief, page 9; reply brief,
page 7). Voekel’s air source is the tire (col. 3, lines 57-59),
not a separately-mounted, nonrotatable device as argued by the
appellants.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 3 and claims 4,
14 and 15 that stand or fall therewith.6
Claims 16-19
Claim 16, which depends from claim 14 which depends from
claim 1, requires that the chamber in the tread segment is
connected via a line through the interior of the tire casing to a
first valve stem which is exterior of the wheel rim, and that a
second valve stem projected from the wheel rim is connected to the
first valve stem by a line that includes an air pressure control
to limit the air pressure conveyed to the chamber in the tread
segment.
The examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that inflation pressure control is desirable
in any inflation process, and that Hirakawa “provides clear
evidence in support of the known desirability in this art of
6 A discussion of Jenne and Bell is not necessary to our
decision.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007