Appeal No. 2004-0572
Application 09/849,315
to remove sidewalls and thereby obtain tread strips to be stacked
and ultimately used in the manner and for the reasons taught by
Pignataro.
In support of his nonobviousness position, the
appellant argues that the above-discussed combination proposed by
the examiner would render Miller inoperable (e.g., see page 11 of
the Brief) apparently because “Miller requires that the sidewalls
must be attached to the tire treads to be operational to produce
the article of manufacture desired by Miller” (Brief, page 20).
It is true that Miller wishes to recycle the whole tire carcass
and concomitantly wishes to ultimately manufacture a product made
from the recycled whole tire carcass. Nevertheless, this is only
one of four primary benefits sought by patentee (e.g., see
lines 36-44 in column 1), and the other benefits would be
achieved in the modified method proposed by the examiner. More
importantly, the Pignataro reference evinces that it was known in
the prior art to remove sidewalls for separate recycle (e.g., see
the last line of the abstract) in order to obtain only the tire
strips for use in manufacturing products made solely therefrom.
Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Examiner’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007