Appeal 2007-1902
Application 09/398,006
The issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness over the combined
teachings of Farnsworth, Gaudin, and Kohno in the ground of rejection of
claims 1, 5, and 24. We note that this combination of references is the basic
combination of references applied in the second and third grounds of
rejection which are not specifically argued by Appellants (see above p. 4).
The plain language of independent claim 1 specifies a pneumatic
radial tire comprising at least, among other things, belt 34,3 reinforcing tread
portion 31 and consisting of three rubberized steel cord layers 35,36,37 in
which innermost cord layer 35 and middle cord layer 36 form cross cord
layer 38, and cords 35a,36a of cord layers 35,36 are crossed with each other
with respect to equatorial plane E of the tire; and circumferential grooves 40
in at least each side region of tread portion 31. Cords 35a,36a of innermost
cord layer 35 and middle cord layer 36 have an inclination angle of 10-25°
with respect to equatorial plane E and cords 37a of outermost cord layer 37
have an inclination angle of 45-115° with respect to equatorial plane E as
measured in the same direction as cords 36a of middle cord layer 36. The
width of outermost cord layer 37 extends “toward an end of the tread portion
[31] over an outermost groove edge of an outermost circumferential groove
[40] in a widthwise direction of the tread portion [31],” is narrower than the
width of innermost cord layer 35, and is 1.0-1.2 times the width of middle
cord layer 36. Steel cords 37a of outermost layer 37 are coated with rubber
having a compression modulus of at least 200 kgf/cm2 measured by any
method.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013