Appeal No. 97-0152
Application 08/157,709
the weight of the user in the space between the cushion pad
elements and retains a deformed shape when the user’s weight is
removed to selectively modify the elevation or pitch of said
insert relative to the inside surface of the shoe.
Although each of the applied references discloses a shoe
insert having an element which corresponds generally to the sheet
set forth in claims 1 and 17, none of these prior art sheet-like
elements appears to have the deformation and memory
characteristics required by these claims. In this regard, the
Meyer blank 16 is a multi-layer compilation made of a semi-rigid,
bendable, resilient thermoplastic resinous sheet material 24 and
a resilient, compressible foam layer 26. The Andresen insert 1
is made of a soft elastic material such as foam rubber. The
Sarkozi lining element 10 is a laminate made of fabric layers 11
and 12 and elastic layers 13 and 14. The Shaffer insole pad 12
is made of a resilient material.
The examiner’s attempts to explain away the foregoing
differences between the claimed shoe insert and the teachings of
the prior art are not well taken. To begin with, the examiner
contends that because the claim limitations defining the
deformation and memory characteristics of the sheet are set forth
in functional language, they cannot serve to distinguish the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007