Appeal No. 96-1881
Application No. 08/095,476
The examiner determined on page 4 of the examiner's answer
that
[i]t would have been obvious in view of Reed and Rudy
'250 to provide distinct and separate chambers being of
either constant or varied pressure to the shoe of Bolla
to further improve the shock absorbing abilities of the
insole.
Implicit in this rejection is the examiner's view that the
above noted modification of Bolla would result in an apparatus
which corresponds to the apparatus recited in claim 37 in all
respects.
We agree with the examiner that providing the same pressure
in each of the three pockets 3, 4 and 5 of Bolla's shoe sole
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the appellant's invention in view of the teachings of
Reed and Rudy '250. In fact, the appellant has not challenged
this determination.
The arguments advanced by the appellant (brief, pp. 23-25)
do not convince us of any error in the position of the examiner
that claim 37 reads on the modified sole of Bolla. In that
regard, contrary to the appellant's assertions, Bolla does
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007