Appeal No. 97-1315
Application 08/264,976
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by
Shimada.
Claims 3-6, 9-14 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Shimada in view of Beneteau.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Shimada in view of Beneteau and Smith.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer and in the final rejection (Paper No. 6).
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in the Revised Brief.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully assessed the
claims, the prior art applied against the claims, and the respective views of the examiner and the
appellant as set forth in the Answer and the Revised Brief. Our conclusions follow.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
There are two parts to this rejection. As we understand the first part, it is that indefiniteness
exists because it is unclear whether the upward curl of 50-60 degrees in the outer sole, which is recited
in claims 10, 12, 14 and 16-20, is present when the sole is free standing or when it is attached to the
shoe. We agree with the appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007