Appeal No. 96-3616
Application 08/368,857
portions of the shoe therein. As an additional item, we observe
that claim 1 requires the strap to extend "about an ankle of the
bodybuilder." When this limitation is viewed in light of
appellant's disclosure, it is clear that the strap (24) of
appellant's shoe extends entirely about the ankle portion of the
shoe and can be snugly secured about the ankle of a bodybuilder
so as to provide support for the ankle during exercises to
strengthen the thigh and calf muscles (see, e.g., Fig. 7). The
strap (3) of Anderie does not extend "about" the ankle of either
the shoe or the user in this manner. Thus, in the present case,
all the limitations of appellant's claim 1 are not found in
Anderie, either expressly or under principles of inherency, and
the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) will
not be sustained.
Turning to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Anderie in view of
Neugebauer, we must agree with appellant that there is no
reasonable teaching, suggestion, or incentive in the applied
references which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to attempt to provide the shoe of Anderie with both the strap (3)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007