Appeal No. 2004-1862
Application No. 09/784,041 Page 3
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellant’s arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellant has not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s rejection for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the final
rejection and answer. We add the following for emphasis.
The examiner has correctly determined that Muraoka expressly
discloses a tire prepared with a rubber containing tire bead
chafer that substantially corresponds with the claimed tire but
for a few requirements of the specific tire bead chafer rubber
called for in appealed claim 2. See page 4 of the answer. In
this regard, the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5) further
provides:
[Muraoka] is silent with respect to (i) the inclusion
of 1, 3-bis(citracoimidiomethyl) benzene or BCl in an
amount between 0.2 and 0.5 phr and (ii) the BET surface
area of the carbon black. Regarding the inclusion of
BCl, Majumdar describes the use of bis-imide compounds,
specifically BCl [Trademark: Perkalink 900], in an
amount between 0.1 and 5 phr in tire rubber
compositions formed of natural rubber and synthetic
rubbers (used as an adhesive) in order to, among other
things, improve durability and reduce reversion
(analogous to aging resistance)(Column 2, lines 27-54
and Column 3, lines 13-21). As such, one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have found it obvious to include BCl in the chafer
composition of Muraoka, there being a reasonable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007