Appeal 2007-1902
Application 09/398,006
to measure the modulus of elasticity of the coating rubber than that
employed in the Specification does not reflect a limitation in claims 1 and
24, see In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348-49, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982),
and we find no basis in the claim language or the disclosure in the
Specification on which to read such a limitation into the claims. See, e.g., In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
On this record, we agree with the Examiner that, prima facie, one of
ordinary skill in this art, armed with the knowledge in the art, would have
configured Farnsworth’s three cord belt assembly wherein a high inclination
angle cord layer is the outermost layer, to have any one of the six possible
configurations with respect to the relative widths of the layers based on the
desired stiffness and protection properties in the heavy duty pneumatic tire,
in the reasonable expectation of obtaining such properties. Indeed, these
properties are taught by Farnsworth without belt cord layer width specificity
and the stiffness property is associated with the relative widths of the belt
cord layers by one of ordinary skill in the art as acknowledged by Gaudin.
Thus, this person would have determined the working or optimum relative
widths of the belt cord layers on this basis. See, e.g., In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454, 456-58, 105 USPQ 233, 235-37 (CCPA 1955) (it is not inventive to
discover by routine experimentation optimum or workable ranges for general
conditions disclosed in the prior art). Furthermore, prima facie this person
would have used a coating rubber having a high modulus of elasticity within
the range taught by Kohno for the high inclination angle cord layer of
Farnsworth in view of the teachings of Kohno that this layer provides
protection for the low inclination angle innermost and middle cord layers,
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013