Appeal No. 2004-0459
Serial No. 09/652,997
controlling the flow of air to and from the expansion chambers”
(answer, pages 7-8).
The appellants argue that their “controls are contained in or
on the wheel and avoids [sic] the need for external control as
taught by Hirakawa” (brief, page 10), and that “Hirakawa does not
teach a process for utilizing a primary chamber of the same tire
to produce expansion of the secondary chamber” (reply brief,
page 7).
As discussed above, the suggestion for using the primary
chamber of the same tire to expand the chamber in O’Brien’s tire
tread would have been provided to one of ordinary skill in the art
by Voelkel. Also, contrary to the appellants’ argument, claim 16
does not require that the air pressure control is in or on the
wheel.
The appellants do not challenge the examiner’s argument that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
pressure control would have been desirable in any inflation
process in the tire art and that Hirakawa provides evidence of
that desirability in the context of expansion chambers in tire
segments. Consequently, we accept the examiner’s argument as
being correct. Moreover, because the chambers in O’Brien’s tire
tread clearly are less resistant than the tire carcass to air
pressure, the suggestion by Voelkel of using air from the same
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007