Appeal No. 97-3708
Application 08/418,321
utilizes a “three-dimensional” form, i.e., a form that closely
resembles the final shape of the overshoe.
Second, although Marx describes the overshoe thereof as
being “lightweight” (column 7, line 57), it is clear from a
consideration of the disclosure as a whole that the Marx
overshoe is intended for extended wear in an outdoor
environment. In this regard, note that Marx utilizes a multi-
layer construction to
obtain a relatively thick reinforced sole portion, with the
overshoe having a large groove and ridge corrugations on the
sole for improved traction, and an overall sturdy construction
to accommodate wearing “for a long time without the child’s
outgrowing it” (column 1, lines 41-42). While we appreciate3
that the appealed claims do not go into the particulars of the
shoe cover produced by the claimed method, it is not at all
clear to us that one of ordinary skill in the art would
3In contrast, the shoe cover produced by appellants’
method is described as being inexpensive, thin, lightweight,
single use, and disposable (specification, pages 3-4).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007