Appeal No. 2005-2544
Application No. 09/328,749
Contrary to appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply
briefs, it appears to us that the language of claims 1 and 26 on
appeal with regard to the rib projecting beyond “an adjacent
surface of the torsion system” (emphasis added) does not require
the rib to project beyond all surfaces of the torsion system, as
appellant seems to believe, but only requires that the rib
project beyond some “adjacent surface” of the torsion system.
This is particularly true, since the rib as set forth in
independent claims 1 and 26 is clearly recited as being part of
the torsion system, not as being an element separate from the
torsion system, as appellant’s arguments seem to imply.
Concerning claims 9, 15 and 20, we note that the
intermediate sole member (101) defining the “torsion system” of
the shoe sole seen in Anderie includes a forefoot portion, a
rearfoot portion and an intermediate portion that together form a
single plate and wherein a width of the intermediate portion of
the plate is narrower than the forefoot and rearfoot portions
(Fig. 9) and the material properties of the foamed plastic
forefoot and rearfoot portions are different than the
intermediate portion including the hard polyamide stiffening
element (109).
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007