Appeal 2007-1902
Application 09/398,006
[sic] beginning on page 54” with the “relevant examples . . . consistent with
and fully commensurate with the scope of the claims” (Br. 20). Appellants
contend the relevant examples of the invention “exclude the data for
Examples 15 and 16 in Table 2, which correspond to a different
embodiment” (Br. 20). Appellants contend that “by comparative test data,
Appellant has [sic, Appellants have] delineated substantial improvements in
performance of the tire in accordance with this subject matter covered by the
claims on appeal,” and that “[t]he Examiner’s reliance on any of the
‘Comparative’ examples (both the tire configurations and the test results) as
evidence of the claimed widths of the cord layers is improper, as these
examples and test results are not prior art admissions” (id. 20-21, emphasis
omitted).
Appellants contend that the method of measuring compression
modulus in rubber illustrated in Specification Fig. 3 is different than
Kohno’s method, and thus the claimed value is larger than the value
disclosed in the reference (Br. 21). Appellants contend Kohno discloses the
modulus of elasticity for a circumferential layer and is silent with respect to
the modulus of elasticity of slant layer 9 (id.).
Appellants contend, with respect to claim 5, the Examiner’s position
is “so generalized as to fall well short of the rigorous standard required” by
our reviewing court (Br. 22).
The Examiner responds that Gaudin’s acknowledgment of different
cord layer widths for stiffness reduction is with respect to belt design
generally, is not specific to Gaudin’s belt design, and is consistent with the
belt design illustrated in Farnsworth’s figures (Answer 11). The Examiner
contends the Farnsworth figures depict most of the six possible designs with
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013