slightly inwardly. While the location of the journals allow
for a slightly inward bend of the wearers lower leg (Fig. 1
(d)), the journals 13 and 15 on opposite sides of the boot
would appear to hinder or obstruct most lateral movement by
the wearer. In contrast, DE ‘503 and US ‘041 teach snowboard
boots where substantial lateral movement by the wearer is not
only possible but desirable. Why then would one of ordinary
skill in the art look to EP ‘400 to arrive at the claimed
invention? Okajima has failed to provide a sufficient reason.
Likewise, AT ‘637 would not have reasonably suggested
modifying either DE ‘503, US ‘041 and/or EP ‘400. AT ‘637
describes a snowboard shoe whose sole has varying stiffness.
The design of the shoe sole allows downward and inward motion
of the wearers lower leg. Although AT ‘637 does suggest a
solution to the problem, e.g. a design that allows a wearer’s
leg to bend downward and forward, the solution is different
than the claimed pivot located offset from the longitudinal
median plane of the boot. Similarly, while DE ‘746 shows a
binding design that allows the wearer’s lower leg to bend
downwardly and inwardly, the pivot location of the binding is
located along the longitudinal plane and is not offset
therefrom. The teachings of DE ‘746 do not make up for the
lack of suggestion from any of the aforementioned references
- 20 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007