Appeal No. 2000-2040 Page 3
Application No. 09/027,867
Claims 6 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Softspikes in view of Dassler and Kelly
or Jordan and either Johnson or Kataoka.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Softspikes in view of Dassler and Johnson or
Kataoka.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 17, mailed
January 27, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 16, filed
December 29, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed March 24,
2000) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation
of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007