Appeal 2006-2010
Application 10/349,684
The Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 2-8 (Br. 5-
8). We therefore limit our discussion to the sole independent claim, i.e.,
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
Aoki discloses a safety shoe having an outsole (11) attached to a
peripheral edge of a vamp (2) by a midsole (12) everywhere except at the
outsole’s upper edge where the attachment is by way of a circumferential
member (14) (col. 7, ll. 11-19; fig. 5). The midsole is sponge rubber and the
circumferential member is hard rubber (col. 7, ll. 17-21). “[T]he upper
circumferential edge of the outsole part 11 or the midsole part 12 may be
fused directly with the lower circumferential edge 2a of the vamp 2 by the
vulcanization molding without interposing the circumferential member 14”
(col. 11, ll. 41-45).
McClelland discloses a boot comprising an outsole peripheral wall
(48) having scallops (60) or other protrusions near its upper end that extend
inwardly into a filling material (24) such as polyurethane (col. 3, ll. 55-57;
col. 4, ll. 17-19; fig. 4). “The scallops 60 interlock with the filler 24 [to]
improve the interconnection of the various sole components. If desired, the
scallops 60 may define apertures (not shown) through which the filler 24 can
flow to further improve the interconnection of the sole components” (col. 4,
ll. 21-24).
The Appellant argues that Aoki’s circumferential member is required
and is not a cushioning layer (Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2). The Appellant is
incorrect as to the circumferential member being required. Aoki teaches that
the upper circumferential edge of the outsole or the midsole can be fused
directly with the lower circumferential edge of the vamp without interposing
the circumferential member (col. 11, ll. 41-45). Aoki, therefore, would have
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013