Appeal No. 1997-1316
Application No. 08/272,147
and the outsole being raised (figure 1) substantially as
claimed except for the exact material and thickness for the
foot support member and the angle of the front edge of the
wedge.” For the foot support material and the thicknesses of
the foot support material in the heel and the ball area of a
foot, the examiner turns to Tax which discloses the use of
“cork, rubber or a combination of both” for body 17 (column 2,
lines 1 and 2), and a body 17 that has such noted minimal
thicknesses (Figure 3). Messler is cited by the examiner
(Answer, page 2) for a teaching of “ending the front portion
of a wedge (10) in an angle (figure 3) to coincide with the
actual ball area of the wearers’ foot.” The examiner
concludes (Answer, pages 2 and 3) that “[i]t would have been
obvious to make the foot support member from cork with minimum
thicknesses in the heel and ball area as taught by Tax and to
angle the front edge of the wedge as taught by Messler in the
sole of Hollister to provide a more comfortable and conforming
foot support layer and to provide an angled front edge to more
closely follow the angle of the wearers natural flex line.”
With respect to the specifically claimed angles, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007