Appeal No. 97-2615 Page 11
Application No. 08/293,681
position and locked in the latching downhill position.”
Walkhoff discloses that the pulling elements 50 and 50' are
subjected to tensile forces after the shaft part 18 is clamped
in the downhill position (Col. 4, lines 51-56). As such,
there is no disclosure of any relationship between the
position of the shaft part and the pulling elements 50 and 50'
that would result in the outer shell being pulled towards the
sole when the shaft is in the downhill position.
As we find that Walkhoff does not disclose a second
tensioning system that pulls the outer shell toward the sole
when the boot is in the downhill position, we will not sustain
the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claim 1
and claims 2 through 5, 10 and 19 dependant therefrom as
anticipated by Walkhoff.
In addition, we will not sustain the remaining rejections
i.e. the rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Walkhoff in view of Bonnaventure;
the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Walkhoff in view of Kaufman; and the
rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007