Appeal No. 2004-1862
Application No. 09/784,041 Page 4
expectation of success to obtain improved durability
and aging resistance in the chafer of Muraoka.
In this regard, Muraoka (column 4, lines 52-56) discloses
that “other additives for rubbers generally used in the
production of tires . . .” can be used in the chafer rubber
composition disclosed therein. Furthermore, the examiner (final
rejection, page 3) has made the factual determination that “anti-
reversion agents in general are conventionally employed in tire
components, especially those containing natural rubber, in order
to eliminate the reduction in crosslink density and ultimately
increase the strength and durability of the respective tire
component.” That factual determination has not been directly
refuted by appellant.1 Given this record, we determine that the
examiner has set forth a reasonable case establishing, prima
facie, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led
1 At page 5 of the answer, the examiner maintains that
appellant has not challenged the factual veracity of the
examiner’s determination. In the reply brief, appellant refers
to a further factual determination of the examiner. Rather than
dispute those determinations, appellant offers an argument as to
the procedural correctness of the examiner’s factual findings.
However, this record does not reflect that appellant submitted a
petition seeking redress from the matters complained of. On this
record, we agree with the examiner that the noticed facts have
not been refuted in a timely manner by appellant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007