Ex Parte OKAMOTO et al - Page 8

                Appeal 2007-1902                                                                                  
                Application 09/398,006                                                                            
                Fig. 6 in which “the outermost [cord layer is] wider than the middle [cord                        
                layer] and narrower than the innermost” cord layer, contending that the                           
                illustrative embodiments are “not disclosed as being generally applicable to                      
                all breaker [cord layer] configurations and one skilled in the art would not                      
                have taken away such a teaching or even a suggestion in this direction” (Br.                      
                13).  Appellants contend that Gaudin Figs. 2 and 6 show that the middle cord                      
                layer has a high cord inclination angle while the innermost and outermost                         
                cord layers have a low cord inclination angle in which the cord inclination                       
                angle of the middle and outermost cord layer are measured in different                            
                directions, thus teaching away from the claimed invention (id. 13-14, citing                      
                Gaudin col. 3, ll. 1-14 and 24-35; see also Br. 17).  On this basis, Appellants                   
                contend Gaudin teaches that cooperation between tire parts is critical and                        
                some features of a tire construction cannot be selected while ignoring other                      
                features, and while teaching “a general desirability to stagger the” cord                         
                layers, Gaudin provides no “particular way to do so” (Br. 14 and 17-18).                          
                Appellants contend there are more than six possible cord layer relative width                     
                designs when cord direction and inclination angle are considered, pointing                        
                out that none of Farnsworth’s illustrative embodiments meet the claims, and                       
                since the illustrative embodiments are not drawn to scale, there is no                            
                evidence that the width of the outermost cord layer falls within the claimed                      
                range relative to the width of the middle cord layer (Br. 18-19).  Appellants                     
                contend the difference in widths between the innermost and outermost cord                         
                layers as claimed improves cut resistance (id. 19-20).                                            
                       Appellants contend, with respect to the examples in Specification                          
                Tables 1 and 2 beginning on page 54, “the advantages of the claimed subject                       
                matter are amply set forth in the comparisons described in the Specificaiton                      

                                                      8                                                           

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013