Ex Parte Evans et al - Page 3


                Appeal 2007-0235                                                                              
                Application 09/945,006                                                                        

                      The Appellants argue that “Schroer, Jr. et al has no disclosure of the                  
                position of a peripheral contour relative [to] the longitudinal arch or                       
                transverse arch or any of the foot bones” (Br. 4).  Schroer’s figures 1A and                  
                1B show that the arch support extends along the entire arch’s length and,                     
                therefore, conforms to the arch in the longitudinal direction.  Schroer’s                     
                figure 1 shows that the arch support extends substantially across the arch’s                  
                transverse direction, and a comparison of Schroer’s figures 5A (no foot) and                  
                5B (with foot (load 26)) shows that the arch support slopes downward across                   
                the full width of the arch under no load and, under load, slopes downward                     
                across the arch’s transverse direction such that it conforms to the arch across               
                the full transverse direction of the arch.  Because the arch support conforms                 
                to the arch along its transverse direction, it necessarily conforms to the arch               
                region bones recited in the Appellants’ claims.  We therefore are not                         
                convinced by the Appellants’ arguments (Br. 4-8; Reply Br. 2-4) regarding                     
                independent claim 1 or the bones recited in independent claims 9 and 45 and                   
                the dependent claims.                                                                         
                      The Appellants argue that Schroer’s insole is not sized for a human                     
                foot of a predetermined size and that the arch support does not form part of a                
                footbed that generally conforms to the plantar surface of a human foot (Br.                   
                6-7).  That argument is not persuasive because Schroer’s insole is designed                   
                to fit the general shape of a foot’s plantar surface (col. 4, ll. 18-19).  The                
                predetermined human foot size is the foot size corresponding to the size of                   
                the insole as manufactured.  Because both the Appellants’ footbed (claim 5)                   
                and Schroer’s insole (col. 4, ll. 18-19) conform to the foot’s plantar surface,               


                                                      3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013