Appeal No. 96-3616
Application 08/368,857
therein and the strap or belt (16) of Neugebauer. The shoe of
Neugebauer, with its inserts or underlays (11-13) and strap or
belt (16), is clearly a distinct system from that of Anderie for
coping with the same or similar problem of ankle injury due to
bending the ankle outwards. Since we have determined that the
examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based on a hindsight
reconstruction using appellant's own disclosure as a blueprint to
arrive at the claimed subject matter, it follows that we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on Anderie and Neugebauer.
Having reviewed the patents to Agnew and Lawlor also applied
by the examiner, we find nothing therein which overcomes or
supplies the deficiencies of the basic combination of Anderie and
Neugebauer as discussed above. Accordingly, it follows that the
examiner's respective rejections of claims 3 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 will likewise not be sustained.
Based on the foregoing , the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007