Appeal 2007-0235
Application 09/945,006
Schroer’s arch support necessarily forms part of a footbed as that term us
used by the Appellants.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Appellants argue that Schroer does not disclose the bones recited
in the claims from which claims 7, 12, 16, 42 and 43 depend, and that
Schroer does not disclose the bones recited in independent claim 45 (Br. 8-
10). We are not persuaded by that argument for the reasons given above
regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).1
DECISION
The rejections over Schroer of claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-15 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claims 7, 12, 16, 42, 43 and 45 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, are affirmed.
AFFIRMED
vsh
1 It is undisputed that Schroer (col. 7, ll. 7-27) would have fairly suggested,
to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Shore hardness, density, Ball Rebound
and compression set required by the Appellants’ claims 42 and 43.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013