Appeal No. 98-0464
Application 08/554,386
virtually unrestrained relative motion between the wearer’s
heel and forefoot. Brown’s reinforcing members 30 and 32, on
the other hand, are designed to provide lateral support in a
shoe having but a single sole unit. The only suggestion for
combining these rather disparate teachings in the manner
proposed by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2 through 6, 9 through
13, 15 and 16 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable
over Misevich in view of Brown.
Since neither Whitman nor Glidden cures the above noted
shortcoming of Misevich with respect to subject matter set
forth in independent claim 1, we also shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 7
and 8 as being unpatentable over Misevich in view of Whitman
and claim 14 as being unpatentable over Misevich in view of
Glidden.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007