Appeal No. 2004-0461 Application No. 09/532,371 Independent claim 14 recites that the phosphorescent layer is "substantially free of rubber." Claim 25, the other independent claim on appeal, recites that the "phosphorescent layer is a phosphorescent pigment or a blend comprising a phosphorescent pigment and a carrier . . . wherein said carrier is substantially free of rubber." According to appellants, "the glow-in-the-dark tire of the present invention offers a safety tire which can be more easily seen in low visibility or nighttime conditions when compared to conventional tires without a phosphorescent layer" (page 3 of principal brief, second paragraph). The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: (a) claims 14 and 25 over Rogal in view of Kanenari, Kubota and De Young; (b) claims 15-20, 26-29 and 33 over the references stated in (a) above further in view of Majumdar; (c) claims 21, 30, 31 and 36 over the references stated in (a) above further in view of Shimizu and Anderson; (d) claims 32 and 37 over the references stated in (c) above further in view of either Santilli, Pollard or Nguyen; and (e) claims 34 and 35 over the references stated in (a) above further in view of Smith and Fukumoto. -3-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007