Ex parte SUSSMANN - Page 3




          Appeal No. 95-4148                                                          
          Application 08/113,661                                                      


          straps which run over the upper to at least an edge area of the             
          sole as permanent parts thereof with the tensioning strip, a                
          first of the supporting straps being directed toward an area at             
          least as far rearward as the metatarsophalangeal joints and a               
          second of the supporting straps extending rearwardly to a heel              
          part of the shoe and at least partially encompasses the heel at             
          least in the edge area of the sole; wherein the tensioning strips           
          have a greater stiffness than the supporting straps; and wherein            
          the tensioning strips, at least in an area at which the guide               
          elements are provided thereon, are made of a material that is               
          abrasion-resistant, hard and of a low coefficient of friction.              
               The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of              
          obviousness are:                                                            
          Spencer                  2,591,211                Apr.  1, 1952             
          Pasternak                4,670,998                June  9, 1987             
          Bernhard                 4,726,126                Feb. 23, 1988             
          Berger                   5,117,567                June  2, 1992             

               The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                    
           103 as follows:                                                           
               a) claims 1 through 7 and 19 through 21 as being                       
          unpatentable over Berger in view of Spencer;                                
               b) claims 13, 15 and 16 as being unpatentable over Berger in           
          view of Spencer, and further in view of Pasternak; and                      
               c) claims 17 and 18 as being unpatentable over Berger in               
          view of Spencer, and further in view of Bernhard.                           
               Reference is made to the appellant’s main and reply briefs             
          (Paper Nos. 17 and 19) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.              



                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007