Appeal No. 2005-2544
Application No. 09/328,749
appellant’s brief (filed July 28, 2003) and reply briefs (filed
October 23, 2003 and October 14, 2004) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
rejections before us on appeal will not be sustained. Our
reasoning in support of that determination follows. In addition,
we have exercised our authority under 37 CFR § 41.50(b) and
entered a new ground of rejection.
In rejecting claims 1, 8 through 11, 15 through 17, 19
through 21, 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderie in view of Dubner and Kraeuter, the
examiner has determined that Anderie discloses all the
limitations of the enumerated claims except for 1) the forefoot
portion of the torsion system spanning the entire forefoot area
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007