Appeal No. 97-3298
Application No. 08/349,426
is depicted. Thus, its perimeter is not in conformity with
the language of the claim. The examiner is of the view that
it would have been obvious to cut away non-essential portions
of the plate, leaving the shoe as an outline of the perimeter.
However, we fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or
incentive which would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to make such a modification, especially in view of the
fact that the patentee contemplates using the device as an
insert in a rectangular shoe box top (Figure 7).
A prima facie case of obviousness has not been
established with regard to claim 7, and we therefore will not
sustain the rejection. It follows that the rejection of
claims 8 and 9, which depend from claim 7, also cannot be
sustained.
The holdown that we decided above with regard to claim 3
is not taught by Bonfigli also is recited in independent claim
11. We therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 11
or dependent claims 13 and 14.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007