Appeal No. 2005-0704
Application No. 09/812,293
of obviousness. Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument,
JP ‘104 does not describe the claimed green tire within the
meaning of § 102, we concur with the examiner that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the
lamination process of JP ‘104 with the recited extrusion process.
The secondary references cited by the examiner, Kiemer, Ible, sk
and Tompkins, simply supply further evidence of what is
acknowledged in appellant’s specification.
Appellant’s specification acknowledges that it was known in
the art to use an extrusion apparatus to form a body ply having
two rows of reinforcement elements, although the advantage of a
seamless ply is at the cost of a significant initial equipment
investment (see paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 of appellant’s
specification). Also, the specification acknowledges that it was
known in the art to use an extrusion apparatus to form a single
layer body ply having steel belts, and it only requires replacing
a removable guide insert with the insert of the present invention
to produce an elastomeric sheet having a plurality of rows of
reinforcement cords (see page 5 of specification, last paragraph).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007