Appeal No. 1999-2103
Application No. 08/734,205
While Lorme may suggest replacing the rain shoe spike of Baylo
with the stud taught by Lorme, we perceive no teaching or
suggestion in the combined references to modify the shape of
the ridges of Baylo's rain shoe spike as proposed by the
examiner. Accordingly, we shall not sustain rejection (3).
The examiner has rejected claim 20, which depends from
claim 18, as being unpatentable over Baylo in view of Lorme
and Zaleski. The deficiency in the combination of Baylo and
Lorme finds no cure in the teachings of Zaleski. Therefore,
it follows that we shall also not sustain rejection (5).
Turning now to the examiner's rejection of claims 18 and
19 as being unpatentable over Baylo in view of Castioni, we
note that Castioni discloses a rubber heel-tap and sole-tap
which present a series of progressively circular ribbings 2-5.
While Castioni (translation, pages 1 and 4) describes the taps
as possessing the property of agility (nimbleness, elasticity,
springiness or resilience), Castioni does not teach or suggest
that the heel or sole taps reduce or prevent slippage, as the
rain shoe spikes of Baylo are intended to do. Thus, it is not
apparent to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found any suggestion in Castioni to modify the shape of the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007