Appeal 2007-0388
Application 10/337,459
dangerous temperatures, as determined by the tire and wheel assembly
geometry and sensitivity and strength characteristics, without being too
responsive (Specification 3: last paragraph; Stanton, col. 1, ll. 67-70; and
Harvey, col. 1, ll. 11-14 and col. 3, ll. 65-68). Thus, in essence, the general
conditions of Appellants' claims are disclosed in Stanton and Harvey.
Consequently, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
ranges of the geometry and relative positioning of elements of the tire and
wheel assembly by routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in
the art would appreciate and be able to predict the effects of material
characteristics, geometry, and relative positioning on heat transfer
characteristics of the tire and wheel assembly and thus would have good
reason to pursue those options likely to yield good results, in the form of
desirable thermal response, with such anticipated results being likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. As
Appellants have not shown that the distances recited in claims 3, 9, 14, 18,
19, and 20 produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind
and not merely in degree from the results of Stanton and Harvey or that the
proposed modification was not within the capabilities of one of ordinary
skill in the art, we conclude that the particular distances recited in claims 3,
9, 14, 18, 19, and 20 are predictable variations of the applied prior art and
thus would have been obvious.
For the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claims 1-21 is
sustained.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013