Ex Parte Polegato Moretti - Page 3





                Appeal No. 2004-0127                                                                                 Page 3                    
                Application No. 09/765,605                                                                                                     



                                                                 OPINION                                                                       

                         In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                                       

                the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                                      

                respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence                                          

                of our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                                                        

                         All of the claims stand rejected as being obvious2 in view of the combined                                            

                teachings of four references.  With regard to claim 1, the sole independent claim, the                                         

                examiner has found all of the subject matter to be disclosed in Dassler, except for the                                        

                tread being made of leather, the presence of a membrane permeable to vapor and                                                 

                impermeable to water sealed to the peripheral regions of the tread, and the inserts                                            

                being made of plastic (Answer, page 4).  However, the examiner takes the position that                                         

                it would have been obvious to modify the Dassler shoe to meet the terms of claim 1 in                                          

                view of the teachings of the other three references.  The appellant argues that no                                             

                suggestion exists to combine the references in the manner proposed by the examiner.                                            



                         2The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to                     
                one of ordinary skill in the art.  See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881                        
                (CCPA 1981).  In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to                          
                provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or                   
                to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.  See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,                          
                973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).  To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,                          
                suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of                        
                ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.  See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-                
                Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825                             
                (1988).                                                                                                                        










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007