Ex Parte OKAMOTO et al - Page 4

                Appeal 2007-1902                                                                                  
                Application 09/398,006                                                                            
                claim 6 as unpatentable over Farnsworth, Gaudin, and Kohno as applied in                          
                claim 1 and further in view of Okamoto (id. 9-10); and                                            
                claim 7 as unpatentable over Farnsworth, Gaudin, and Kohno as applied in                          
                claim 1 and further in view of Imamura (id. 10-11).                                               
                       Appellants argue claims 1, 3 and 26 as a group and claim 5 separately                      
                to a limited extent with respect to the first ground of rejection (Br. 9 and 22).                 
                Appellants argue the limitations of claims 24 and 25 “distinguish claim 24                        
                from the applied prior art” with respect to the first ground of rejection (id.                    
                22) which does not constitute a specific argument.  The arguments that                            
                claims 6 and 7 are “allowable at least by reason of . . . dependency” with                        
                respect to the second and third grounds of rejection (id.) also do not                            
                constitute specific arguments.  Accordingly, we decide this appeal based on                       
                independent claims 1 and 24 as representative of the grouping of claims as                        
                well as claim 5 to the extent argued in the Brief and Reply Brief.2  37 C.F.R.                    
                § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 2004).                                                              
                       The Examiner contends Farnsworth Fig. 1 illustrates a pneumatic tire                       
                having steel cord belt assembly of innermost cord layer 4, middle cord layer                      
                3, and outermost cord layer 2 wherein outermost cord layer 2 is narrower                          
                than innermost cord layer 4 and has high angle cords (Answer 4).  The                             
                Examiner contends Farnsworth teaches the belt assembly has a maximum                              
                axial width of between 90-110% of the tread axial width (id. 4-5, citing                          
                Farnsworth page 1, ll. 94-96).  The Examiner contends one of ordinary skill                       
                                                                                                                 
                2  An appeal, whether on brief or heard, is decided on the record.  37 C.F.R.                     
                § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 2004) provides in pertinent part:  “Any                             
                arguments or authorities not included in the brief or reply brief filed                           
                pursuant to § 41.41 will be refused consideration by the Board, unless good                       
                cause is shown.”  See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure                                   
                §§ 1205.02 and 1209 (8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005; 1200-14 and 1200-48).                          
                                                      4                                                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013