Appeal No. 2006-0190
Application No. 10/113,567
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner argues that “a plurality of the concavo-convex
faces A sectioned to be adjacent by the sipes” is ambiguous
because faces A (upward pointing combinations of triangular faces
in figure 2A) are not adjacent but, rather, are separated by
faces B (downward pointing combinations of triangular faces in
figure 2A) (answer, pages 3-4).
To be adjacent, faces A need not be in direct contact. See
Free Motion Fitness Inc. v. Cybex Int’l Inc., 423 F.3d 1343,
1348, 76 USPQ2d 1432, 1436-37 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Regardless,
faces A in the appellant’s figure 2A are in contact with other
faces A at their lower corners even though their upper portions
are separated by faces B.
Thus, the faces A are adjacent. Consequently, we reverse
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The appellant’s claims require that angle 2 in figure 2A is
10-35º.
Maük discloses a tire comprising sections 10 and 11 in
figures 3 and 6 having an angle with one another of approximately
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007