Appeal No. 1997-1316
Application No. 08/272,147
examiner indicates (Answer, page 3) that “it has been held
that discovering an optimum value of a result effective
variable involves only routine skill in the art.”
Appellant argues (Brief, page 14) that “[a]lthough Tax
teaches a cork layer there is absolutely no teaching in Tax
which would suggest that any type of cork layer or
construction could be utilized in a running shoe as taught by
Hollister.”
Based upon the teachings of Tax, it appears that cork is
an interchangeable material with foam rubber when the
cork/foam rubber is used as an internal layer beneath the foot
support. On the other hand, appellant has correctly argued
that there are no teachings of record for using a cork layer
as a foot support, especially in an athletic shoe such as the
one disclosed by Hollister. Thus, we are likewise in
agreement with appellant’s argument (Brief, page 14) that
“teachings from one specific type of footwear are not obvious
to combine with completely different types of footwear unless
there is some suggestion or teaching supporting the
combination. (Emphasis added). It is for this reason that we
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007