Appeal No. 97-0152
Application 08/157,709
The items relied upon by the appellant as evidence of non-
obviousness are:
The 37 CFR § 1.132 declarations filed on October 24, 1994 and on
April 7, 1995, respectively (Paper Nos. 6 and 11).
Claims 1, 3 through 7 and 11 through 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of
Andresen, Sarkozi and Shaffer.5
Having carefully considered the scope of the claims, the
teachings of the applied references and the respective viewpoints
advanced in the appellant’s main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 18
and 20) and in the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 19), we shall not
sustain this rejection.
Claims 1 and 17, the two independent claims on appeal,
recite a shoe insert comprising, inter alia, a shoe insole formed
of a non-compressible sheet of deformable synthetic organic
thermoplastic resin having memory to permanently retain a
deformed shape, and a plurality of cushion pad elements attached
to the bottom of the sheet. These claims also require that when
the insert or insole is placed in a shoe, the sheet deforms under
5The final rejection (Paper No. 8) contained a number of
additional rejections, all of which have been withdrawn by the
examiner in light of the papers filed on April 7, 1995 (Paper
Nos. 10 and 12). See the advisory letter dated May 18, 1995
(Paper No. 13).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007