Appeal No. 98-1538
Application No. 08/698,470
provision of an inclined rear surface and incorporate it into
the shoe of Whitaker in the manner the examiner has proposed.
The examiner may not pick and choose from any one reference
only so much of it as will support a given position, to the
exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of
what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See Bausch & Lomb, Inc., v. Barnes-
Hind/Hydrocurve Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 448, 230 USPQ 416, 419
(Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 823 (1987) and In re
Kamm, 452 F.2d 1052, 1057, 172 USPQ 298, 301-02 (CCPA 1972).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Whitaker in view of Fox.
Turning now to the various rejections of claims 32-34, we
have carefully considered the subject matter defined by these
claims. However, for reasons stated infra in our new
rejections entered under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b),
no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain
language appearing in the claims. In comparing the claimed
subject matter with the applied prior art, it is apparent to
us that considerable speculations and assumptions are
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007