Appeal No. 2000-0573
Application No. 08/678,991
increase flexibility of foot movement and comfort along the
natural tilt of the foot” (final rejection, page 3).
Presumably, the Olson skate as so modified would meet the
wheel size limitations in claims 30 and 33.
Madsen, however, does not cure the admitted deficiencies
of the Olson-Nyitrai combination with respect to claims 30 and
33. Madsen discloses a skate having a plurality of rollers 16
mounted on curved stringers 14 (see Figure 1). The rollers
gradually decrease in diameter under the front end of the
skate to allow increased tilt of the foot when weight is
shifted toward the toe (see page 1, lines 48 through 54). In
short, there is nothing in this teaching which, when
considered in combination with Olson and Nyitrai, would have
suggested a skate having the particular four wheel
arrangements recited in claims 30 and 33.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 30 and 33, or of claims 31, 32,
34 and 35 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over
Olson in view of Nyitrai and Madsen.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007