Appeal 2007-1902
Application 09/398,006
Answer 13-14 (emphasis omitted). Maintaining the position Table 2 shows
“improved cut resistance is obtained by providing an outermost [cord layer]
having a width greater than the position of the grove under which the
property is measured” and “does not provide a showing of unexpected
results for the outermost [cord layer] having a width between 1.0 and 1.2
times the width of the middle” cord layer, the Examiner contends
[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would expect the cut resistance to improve by extending a given
[cord] layer to cover the point at which the resistance is
measured (limited resistance if [cord] layer does not even
extend to a point where resistance is measured). It is noted that
each of Figures 3b and 3c of Farnsworth include a high angled
outermost [cord layer] having a greater width than the middle
[cord] layer.
Id. 14.
Appellants reply that the cord inclination angles of the cord layers
must be considered along with the cord layer widths when considering the
cord layer arrangements illustrated by Gaudin (Reply Br. 5-6, citing Gaudin
col. 3, ll. 24-30). Appellants contend Kohno distinguishes slant belt cord
layer 6 from circumferential belt cord layer 7 which contains cords arranged
substantially parallel to equatorial plane 5 and is disposed on slant belt cord
layer 6, and teaches the modulus of elasticity for circumferential belt cord
layer 7 (Reply Br. 8, citing Kohno col. 3, ll. 48-55).
With respect to Specification Comparative Examples in Tables 1 and
2 beginning on page 54, Appellants maintain the position taken at pages
20-21 of the Brief (Reply Br. 8; see above p. 9). Appellants contend “the
embodiments of examples 15 and 16 in Table 2 are not taught by . . .
Farnsworth” (id. 8).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013