Appeal No. 97-3298
Application No. 08/349,426
loop, or anywhere near enough to be considered to be
“substantially along” it.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that a prima
facie case of obviousness has not been established, and we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 6 adds to claim 1 the requirement that the first
and second ends of the shoe lace be of different colors, and
the marking be of the same color as the first end. We agree
with the examiner that this would have been obvious,
suggestion being found in the teaching of Bonfigli of using
color matching between the shoe lace and other components of
the device to enhance its teaching function (column 2, lines
1-12). The rejection of this claim is sustained.
Independent claim 7 sets forth a shoe device and shoe
lace combination comprising a plate having a front portion
with a rounded perimeter and largely parallel sides lying
rearwardly thereof to represent the outline of a child’s shoe
as seen in plan view, and which is marked in the front to
represent the front portion of a shoe. The Bonfigli device
comprises a rectangular plate upon which the outline of a shoe
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007