Appeal No. 1997-1316
Application No. 08/272,147
uniform thickness of the foot support disclosed by Hollister
with the noted minimal thicknesses of the Tax foot support.
With respect to the teachings of Messler, the examiner has not
provided any evidence or a convincing line of reasoning that
“an angled front edge to more closely follow the angle of the
wearers natural flex line” is either needed or wanted in the
athletic shoe disclosed by Hollister.
In short, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9
and 11 through 17 is reversed because “[i]t is well settled
that it is impermissible to use the claimed invention as a
template to piece together the teachings of the prior art so
as to render the claimed invention obvious” (Brief, page 15).
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 through 4, 7, 8 and
10 is reversed because the teachings of Hashimoto, Gilbert,
Telecemian and Franklin do not cure the noted shortcomings in
the teachings of Hollister, Tax and Messler.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007