Appeal No. 2002-1082 Page 2
Application No. 09/474,179
BACKGROUND
The appellant’s invention relates broadly to the field of safety shoes and more
particularly to safety shoes having a steel toe box for protecting the wearer’s toes
(specification, page 1). Claim 10 is representative of appellant’s invention and reads as
follows:
10. An improved safety shoe having an upper, a protective
toe, and an outsole comprising a substantially flat partial
insole tuck having an edge surface located within the
protective toe, wherein said partial insole tuck prevents
rearward movement of the protective toe and wherein the
length of said partial insole tuck is less than the length of the
shoe interior.
The following are the only rejections before us on appeal.2
Claims 10, 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hansen3.
Claims 11-14, 16 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hansen in view of Official Notice.
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. 24) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
2 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, of claims 10-20 was overcome by the
amendment of Paper No. 20 (see Paper No. 21).
3 U.S. Patent No. 5,111,597, issued May 12, 1992.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007