Appeal No. 2002-1268
Application 09/282,672
Claims 7, 8, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the references applied
against claims 6 and 15 and further in view of Slepian.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the references applied against claims 1
and 12 and further in view of Boys.
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 23) and answer
(Paper No. 24) for the respective positions of the appellant and
the examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
The Huff patents, the examiner’s alternative primary
references, have essentially similar, if not identical,
disclosures. Each pertains to a shoe or boot manufactured by2
the so-called Goodyear welt system. Because this system applies
tremendous pressure to the innersole during application of the
welt stitch, the shoes/boots manufactured thereby require a rigid
1The above statements of rejection mirror those set forth
in the answer (note: in the answer canceled claim 23 was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007