Appeal No. 2007-2156
Application No. 10/606,358
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and
the Examiner, we affirm for the reasons advanced by the Examiner and add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Uchida1 fails to disclose or suggest the use of a surface
treating agent for anchoring the sharp glass fibers to the rubber itself which is an
important feature of the present invention and necessary to achieve Appellants’
excellent results (Br. 10). Appellants also rely on the evidence presented in Table
1 of the Specification as evidence showing the importance of all the many features
of the claimed invention (Br. 7).
Appellants’ arguments and evidence are not persuasive of non-obviousness.
Uchida discloses a studless tire having a tread comprising diene rubber and short
glass fiber which is dispersed in said diene rubber so as to be oriented in the tread
thickness direction (Uchida, col. 8, ll. 29-47). Uchida differs from the claimed
invention in that the short glass fibers are not described as having been surface-
treated in advance by a surface treating agent comprising sulfur containing
mercaptosilane. The Examiner cites the Marzocchi ‘059 as evidence that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that surface treating agents
comprising sulfur were known to have been utilized to anchor glass fibers in
elastomeric materials (Answer 5-6). The Examiner cites Marzocchi ‘280 for a
teaching that a surface treating agent comprising sulfur containing mercaptosilane
1 The Appellants refer to this reference as Ichida throughout the Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013