Appeal No. 2005-2413
Application No. 09/912,865
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Saneto et al. 5,158,627 Oct. 27, 1992
(Saneto)
Freeman et al. 5,494,091 Feb. 27, 1996
(Freeman)
Oare et al. 5,871,600 Feb. 16, 1999
(Oare)
VulcurenŽ Trial Product KA 9188 (Vulcuren), Rubber Business
Group, Rubber Chemicals Product Information (Bayer Technical
Information, Dec. 17, 1998)
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a runflat tire
having an insert comprising a rubbery polymer, sulfur and 1,6-
bis(N,N'-dibenzylthiocarbamoyldithio)-hexane (additive).
Appealed claims 1, 4-6 and 8-14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oare in view of
Vulcuren and Freeman. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated combination of
references further in view of Saneto.
Appellant does not separately argue or group any of the
claims on appeal, nor does appellant advance a separate argument
for the examiner's rejection of claim 17. Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1, and we will
limit our consideration accordingly.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007