Appeal No. 98-1036
Application 08/540,193
combined the various base shoe embodiments disclosed by Mapes
to
support the anticipation rejection of claim 1 (see pages 11
through 13 in the brief) is not persuasive. Although the
examiner's explanation of the manner in which Mapes is applied
to
support the rejection could have been clearer, it reasonably
indicates that the examiner considers claim 1 to be
anticipated by Mapes' Figure 4 embodiment.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Mapes.
In the brief, the appellant states that "[f]or purposes
of this appeal, claims 1-7 and 21-25 stand together as one
group and claims 8-14 stand together as a second group. These
groupings apply to all issues related to the specific claims"
(page 6). In this light, we also shall sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 2
through 7 and 21 through 26 which depend from, and stand or
fall with, claim 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007