Appeal No. 98-0464
Application 08/554,386
of the shoe upper due to application of force to the bottom of
the shoe upper by the wearer's foot and due to stretching of
the shoe upper material.
The items relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
anticipation and obviousness are:
Glidden 2,147,197 Feb. 14, 1939
Whitman 2,539,761 Jan. 30, 1951
Misevich et al. (Misevich) 4,542,598 Sept. 24, 1985
Brown 4,813,158 Mar. 21, 1989
Claims 1 through 6, 9, 10, 15 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Misevich.
Claims 1 through 6, 9 through 13, 15 and 16 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Misevich in view of Brown.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Misevich in view of Whitman.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Misevich in view of Glidden.
Reference is made to the appellant’s main and reply
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007