Ex parte POTTER - Page 8

          Appeal No. 96-1881                                                          
          Application No. 08/095,476                                                  

               The examiner determined on page 4 of the examiner's answer             
               [i]t would have been obvious in view of Reed and Rudy                  
               '250 to provide distinct and separate chambers being of                
               either constant or varied pressure to the shoe of Bolla                
               to further improve the shock absorbing abilities of the                

               Implicit in this rejection is the examiner's view that the             
          above noted modification of Bolla would result in an apparatus              
          which corresponds to the apparatus recited in claim 37 in all               

               We agree with the examiner that providing the same pressure            
          in each of the three pockets 3, 4 and 5 of Bolla's shoe sole                
          would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at              
          the time of the appellant's invention in view of the teachings of           
          Reed and Rudy '250.  In fact, the appellant has not challenged              
          this determination.                                                         

               The arguments advanced by the appellant (brief, pp. 23-25)             
          do not convince us of any error in the position of the examiner             
          that claim 37 reads on the modified sole of Bolla.  In that                 
          regard, contrary to the appellant's assertions, Bolla does                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007