Appeal No. 98-1538
Application No. 08/698,470
surface 6 and a substantially planar lower surface
(unnumbered), and a shell or "upper" 5. Although it is true
that the Whitaker's footwear or shoe is intended to fit over
another shoe (1,2,3), there is simply no claim limitation
which would preclude such an arrangement. As we have noted
above, the claims in a pending application are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations (see In re Morris,
supra, and In re Zletz, supra) and features not claimed may
not be relied upon in support of patentability (In re Self,
supra).
With respect to (b), the sole 11 of Whitaker has a
constant thickness. Simoglou, however, discloses a sole
having an inclined rear "plane" or ramp portion 20 (which, in
conjunction with a substantially planar upper surface,
provides an area of increasing thickness) for the purpose of
aiding walking ability (see col. 2, line 29). Hackner
discloses a similar arrangement at 5 in Fig. 1 for the purpose
of bringing about "the desired stabilization of the foot"
(translation, page 3). In our view, one of ordinary skill in
this art would have found it obvious to provide the rear
portion of the sole of Whitaker with an inclined rear plane in
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007