Appeal No. 2004-0107 Page 3
Application No. 09/963,122
(Paper No. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 17) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellants’ invention relates to improvements in soccer shoes which,
according to the appellants, allow a user to kick the ball farther, lessen the pain in the
user’s feet due to the impact of kicking the ball, and allow the shoe to retain its shape
after kicking the ball and after being used for a long time. The invention is recited in
claim 13 in the following manner:
In a soccer shoe having a sole member, and an
upper fixed to the sole member to surround the heel, medial
side, lateral side, forepart, and instep of the foot of a user,
said upper comprising:
a flexible outer coat thin enough to be used for an ordinary
soccer shoe;
a thin rubber layer laid adhering to the inside of said outer
coat;
a sponge layer laid adhering to the inside of said rubber
layer; and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007