Ex parte ALLEN et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-3173                                                          
          Application No. 08/462,310                                                  


          pending in this application.2                                               
               We REVERSE.                                                            
               According to appellants, the invention is directed to a                
          golf shoe having a sole portion including a heel section, a                 
          shank section, a metatarsal section and a toe section and a                 
          spike socket frame embedded in and extending throughout all                 
          sections of the sole portion (brief, page 2).  Claim 43 is                  
          illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced              
          below:3                                                                     

               43.  A golf shoe comprising:                                           
                    a sole portion having heel, shank, metatarsal and                 
               toe sections; and                                                      
                    a single frame embedded in the sole and extending                 
               across all sections, wherein the frame includes a                      
               plurality of spike sockets that are located in each of                 
               the sections and are approximately planar, and wherein                 
               the frame further includes rod shaped ribs that                        
               interconnect each of the spike sockets to at least two                 
               other spike sockets.                                                   
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              


               Claim 43 was amended and claims 27 through 42 and 46 were canceled,2                                                                     
          subsequent to the final rejection. See Paper No. 15.                        
               Claim 43 as reproduced in the "Appendix" to appellants' brief is3                                                                     
          incorrect.                                                                  
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007