Appeal No. 2006-0494 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/285,801
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we determine that the
examiner’s obviousness rejections are well founded and that
appellants’ arguments are not persuasive in rebuttal. It follows
that, on this record, we will sustain the examiner’s rejections.
Our reasoning follows.
At the outset, we note that appellants argue the claims as a
group with respect to both rejections before us. Thus, we select
claim 1 as the representative claim on which we shall decide this
appeal.
Rejection over Masson, Pyke and Burlett
Appellants do not dispute that Masson discloses a sulfur
cured rubber tread support corresponding to the claimed tread
support ring but for the claim 1 requirements for the use of a
rubber having nylon side chains grafted thereon, and at least one
nylon as part of the sulfur cured rubber used in forming the
tread support. In this regard, Masson (column 1, lines 55-65)
discloses that the rubber composition used in forming the support
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007