Appeal 2007-1902
Application 09/398,006
We further determine the record does not support Appellants’ view
that Gaudin’s statement of the knowledge in the prior art with respect to
relative cord layer widths and the disclosure of cord layer widths therein
would have been considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be limited
to the particular belt assembly configuration described in the reference. It is
well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as
well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably
been expected to draw therefrom, see, e.g., In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on the part of
this person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir.
1985). We fine no disclosure in Gaudin limiting the statements of
“conventional” cord layer arrangements and “belt design” to the particular
belt assembly arrangements disclosed therein. Indeed, we determined above
that one of ordinary skill in this art would have considered the disclosure of
Farnsworth with that of Gaudin since both are directed to a different belt
assembly arrangement as an improvement over the conventional truck tire
that a fourth protective cord layer, and both disclose alternative cord layer
arrangements, including consideration of the alternative direction of the
cords in the cord layers relative to the equatorial plane, in the same manner.
See, e.g., Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1334-37; Keller, 642
F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881.
Furthermore, while we agree with Appellants that the illustrative
embodiments of the reference are not drawn to scale, we are of the view that
one of ordinary skill in this art would have determined the workable or
optimum relative width ranges for the cord layers of the belt assembly
25
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013