Appeal 2007-0163
Application 10/318,898
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSES
Having carefully reviewed the claims, Specification and prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Appellants and the
Examiner, we determine that the Examiner’s rejections are well founded
based on the factual findings set forth in the Answer and below.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
The Examiner has determined that claim 3 is indefinite (Answer 5).
According to the Examiner, claim 3 is improperly dependent on itself (id).
In other words, the Examiner has determined that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not be able to ascertain the scope of claim 3 as a result of this
improper dependency. The Appellants have not specifically challenged this
determination (Br. 9-12).2 Accordingly, we summarily affirm this § 112
rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The Examiner found that Young renders the subject matter defined by
claim 7 anticipated within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Answer 6).
The Examiner found that Young teaches every aspect of the claimed
pneumatic radial ply truck tire for use on steering axles (Answer 6-9). In
this regard, the Examiner has referred to beads, a tread having a plurality of
circumferentially continuous grooves, radially recessed ribs, and a belt
reinforcement structure having a first radially inner belt layer, second and
2 Claims 4 and 5, by virtue of their dependency on claim 3, suffer from the
same defect as claim 3. Thus, in the event of further prosecution, the
Examiner should consider extending this § 112 rejection to claims 4 and 5.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013