Ex Parte MITCHELL - Page 3




              Appeal No. 2002-1082                                                                Page 3                
              Application No. 09/474,179                                                                                


              the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 23 and 25) 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 Hansen patent, and to the respective                     
              positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  On the basis of this review, for                
              the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections.                                    
                     Even assuming that Hansen’s dance shoe is a “safety shoe” having a “protective                     
              toe” as used in claim 10, in light of the broad definition in the Dictionary of Shoe                      
              Industry Terminology appended to appellant’s brief, a point on which we do not                            
              necessarily agree with the examiner4, the Hansen shoe lacks a partial insole tuck                         
              having an edge surface located within the protective toe which prevents rearward                          
              movement of the protective toe (the toe support 44), as required by claim 10.  The                        
              examiner’s position (answer, page 5) that the short shank 50, which the examiner                          
              considers to be the “partial insole tuck,” will to some degree prevent rearward                           
              movement of the protective toe by abutting the forward end of the inner sole 62 does                      

                     4 While the relatively rigid toe support 44 and relatively rigid short shank 50 of Hansen’s dance  
              shoe, which cooperate to provide support enabling the wearer of the dance shoe to stand on the end of     
              his or her toes (column 3, lines 43-45), may broadly be considered a safety feature to protect the foot of
              the wearer, thereby meeting appellant’s proffered definition, it appears from a reading of appellant’s    
              underlying disclosure that appellant’s use of “safety shoe” refers to a term which has established a      
              meaning in the art as a shoe adapted for hazardous work environments to provide protection to the         
              wearer’s foot from impact and puncture injuries.  One skilled in the art would certainly not consider the 
              dance shoe of Hansen, even with its toe support feature, to be such a “safety shoe.”                      






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007