Appeal No. 2004-0572
Application 09/849,315
proposed combination would result in a modification of Miller’s
method so as to obtain and utilize only the tire strips pursuant
to the teachings of Pignataro; however, this combination
certainly would not render the method of Miller inoperative as
the appellant seems to believe.
The appellant further argues that appealed claim 1
includes distinctions over Miller beyond those acknowledged by
the examiner and discussed above. In particular, the appellant
contends that Miller contains no teaching or suggestion regarding
the claim 1 features of storing and handling batches of rubber
pieces “in a bulk storage configuration obtained at low cost for
compact storage of residual bulk rubber at bulk storage sites
from which bulk rubber may be reclaimed in due course for
preparation of rubber products” or of “stacking a plurality of
the storable sections into said stacks in compact rubber-to-
rubber interfacing configurations with frictional resistance
against movement of the sections lateral to the pallet platform
area.” Like the examiner, we find this argument unpersuasive.
The first mentioned “bulk storage configuration” feature is
disclosed by Miller at lines 53-67 in column 4 and lines 34-63 in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007