Appeal No. 98-0464
Application 08/554,386
briefs (Paper Nos. 16 and 19) and to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 17) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections. 2
Turning first to the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1 through 6, 9, 10, 15 and 16, Misevich
discloses an athletic shoe constructed to allow independent
movement of the wearer’s forefoot and heel. To this end, the
shoe comprises spaced forefoot and rearfoot sole units 12 and
14 joined by a flexible and pliable upper 10. The midfoot
portion of the upper defines “a highly flexible, soleless,
universal coupling between the two sole units to allow
virtually unrestrained relative motion between the wearer’s
heel and forefoot” (column 2, lines 50 through 53). Of the
particular make-up of the midfoot portion, Misevich teaches
that
[t]he upper is . . . formed with a pliable wrap-
around saddle [31] which extends along the sides and
2The 37 CFR § 1.132 declaration of Dennis Stevens (Paper
No. 18) which was submitted by the appellant with the reply
brief has been refused entry by the examiner (see Paper No.
20). Accordingly, we have not considered this declaration in
reviewing the examiner’s rejections.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007