Appeal No. 2006-0494 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/285,801
As a final point, we note that appellants base no arguments
on unexpected results for the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we shall affirm the examiner’s obviousness rejection
over Masson, Pyke and Burlett, on this record.
Rejection over admitted prior art, Pyke and Burlett
As acknowledged at page 8 of the brief, appellants base
there arguments against the examiner’s second stated obviousness
rejection over the admitted prior at, Pyke and Burlett on the
same basis as they argued against the combination of Masson, Pyke
and Burlett, as discussed above. In this regard, we note that
Appellants acknowledge that the relied upon admitted prior art
discloses vulcanized rubber support rings and the disadvantages
of higher filler loadings. Given the teachings of Pyke and
Burlett as discussed above, appellants presentation of the same
arguments here are also found unpersuasive of error in the
examiner’s second obviousness rejection. Thus, we shall also
affirm the examiner’s obviousness rejection over the admitted
prior art, Pyke and Burlett, the latter rejection having been
argued on the same unpersuasive basis as the first stated
rejection.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007