Appeal No. 2005-2413
Application No. 09/912,865
the examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior
art, as well as his cogent disposition of the arguments raised by
appellant. Accordingly, we will adopt the examiner's reasoning
as our own in sustaining the rejections of record, and we add the
following for emphasis only.
As explained by the examiner, Oare discloses a runflat tire
much like appellant's with the exception of not including the
claimed additive in the rubbery insert. However, the examiner
correctly points out that Vulcuren teaches that "highly
reversion-stable vulcanizates are formed by including the claimed
additive and further that improved retention of properties, such
as modulus, hardness, and heat build up (hysteresis), are
realized" (page 4 of Answer). Since appellant does not dispute
the examiner's finding that these properties are significant for
inserts of runflat tires, we find no error in the examiner's
legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the additive of Vulcuren
in the rubbery insert of Oare for the purpose of retaining the
advantageous properties of modulus, hardness and hysteresis.
Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art,
upon reading Vulcuren, would not understand that rubber
containing the claimed additive "would show improved properties;
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007