Appeal No. 2004-0461
Application No. 09/532,371
rubber of chlorosulfonated polyethylene and magnesium oxide as a
vulcanizer. We note that the examiner has not rebutted this
evidence. Furthermore, Kanenari represents additional evidence
that a phosphorescent layer on the sidewall of a tire comprises
rubber. Consequently, we find that the examiner's conclusion of
obviousness for the subject matter defined by claims 14-21 lacks
the requisite factual support.
The examiner's rejection of claims 25-37 is another matter.
These claims do not require that the phosphorescent layer is
substantially free of rubber. Claim 25, in relevant part,
recites that "said phosphorescent layer is a phosphorescent
pigment or a blend comprising a phosphorescent pigment and a
carrier, or combinations thereof, wherein said carrier is
substantially free of rubber." Accordingly, claim 25 recites two
alternatives for the phosphorescent layer, with the second
alternative comprising a carrier that is substantially free of
rubber. The first alternative is a phosphorescent layer that is
defined sufficiently broad that it comprises a phosphorescent
pigment and any non-recited components, including rubber.
Accordingly, since appealed claim 25 encompasses tires comprising
a phosphorescent layer including rubber, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 25-37. We note that claim 30,
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007