Appeal 2007-0163
Application 10/318,898
Given that the claimed distance and groove sizes are shown to be
result effective variables, we concur with the Examiner that the
determination of the optimum distances and groove sizes, such as those
claimed, is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980)
(“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in known
process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”) However, on this record,
the Appellants have not demonstrated that such variables impart unexpected
improvements to the claimed tire. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,
16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The law is replete with cases in
which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some
range or other variable within the claims….These cases have consistently
held that in such a situation, the applicant must shown that the particular
range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves
unexpected results relative to the prior art range.”)
Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that Young, Nakamura,
and optionally Travers would have rendered the subject matter recited in
claims 1 through 4, 6 through 10, and 12 obvious within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner determined that the combined disclosures of Young,
Nakamura, Ohya, and optionally at least one of Travers and Kishi would
also have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 5 and 11 obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103
(Answer 14). The disclosures of Young, Nakamura, and Travers are
discussed above.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013