Appeal No. 2004-0107 Page 2
Application No. 09/963,122
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a soccer shoe. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 13, which has been
reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Nyhagen 1,537,778 May 12, 1925
Dreschler 1,577,791 Mar. 23, 1926
Diaz 5,694,703 Dec. 9, 1997
The admitted prior art as set forth on page 3, lines 6-12, of the appellants’ specification
(APA).
Claims 13-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
the appellants regard as the invention.
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(1) Claims 13, 14 and 16-18 on the basis of APA in view of Dreschler.
(2) Claim 15 on the basis of APA in view of Dreschler and Nyhagen.
(3) Claim 19 on the basis of APA in view of Dreschler and Nyhagen.
(4) Claims 20-22 on the basis of APA in view of Dreschler, Nyhagen and Diaz.
(5) Claim 23 on the basis of APA in view of Dreschler, Nyhagen and Diaz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007