Appeal No. 2002-0480
Application 09/224,649
surface the front end of the shoe is elevated such that the upper
surface of the sole piece is parallel to the flat surface.
Additionally, the reference in claim 27 to the “inner sole”
lacks a proper antecedent basis.
In claims 2 through 4, the recitation of the treads is
inconsistent with the recitation in parent claim 1 that the
bottom surface of the sole piece has a smooth continuous surface
from the rear section to the front section.
In claim 2, the recitation that the tread of the transverse
tread design lies transverse to the “width,” rather than the
length, of the sole piece along a longitudinal line of the sole
does not make sense.
In claims 5, 6 and 9, it is unclear how the recited sole
piece upper and lower ends relate to the previously recited sole
piece upper and lower surfaces.
In claim 19, the double recitation of the sole piece upper
surface on which the user’s foot is received is redundant, and
the terms “the upper sole piece” and “said upper end of said sole
piece” lack a proper antecedent basis.
Finally, in claim 20, the term “said smooth continuous
surface” lacks a proper antecedent basis, the recitation of such
a surface is inconsistent with the accompanying recitation of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007