Appeal No. 2000-2061 Page 2
Application No. 08/463,843
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method of manufacture of footwear and to an
article of footwear. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 15 and 27, which appear in an appendix to the appellants’ Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Makovski 3,007,184 Nov. 7, 1961
Funck 3,913,160 Oct. 21, 1975
Huh et al. (Huh) 4,635,384 Jan. 13, 1987
British Patent Specification 1,145,809 Mar. 19, 1969
(Desma-Werke)
French Patent Document 2,034,828 Dec. 18, 1970
(Vibram)
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:2
(1) Claims 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25-27, 30, 34, 39-43, 46, 47 and 50-52 on the basis
of Funck in view of Desma-Werke.
(2) Claims 17, 19, 22, 24, 29, 31-33 and 49 on the basis of Funck in view of Desma-
Werke, Huh and Vibram.
(3) Claims 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25-27, 30, 34, 39-43, 46 and 47 on the basis of
Makovski in view of Desma-Werke.
2Claim 46, which depends from claim 39, was not listed as being included in any of
the rejections in the final rejection or in the Answer, nor has it been canceled, allowed, or
withdrawn from consideration. In the absence of mention of this situation by the appellants
in their Briefs, we consider this omission to be an inadvertent error on the part of the
examiner, and shall group claim 46 with independent claim 39, from which it depends.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007