Appeal No. 98-1538
Application No. 08/698,470
peripheral edge 25 to where the rear plane 27 meets
the forward plane 29, and remains substantially the
same thickness from this location to the forward
peripheral edge 21. [Specification, page 8.]
It is thus readily apparent that according to the original
disclosure the rear plane or rear heel section is of the same
thickness at least where it meets the forward plane or forward
toe section. See also Fig. 1 of the drawing as originally
filed.
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. In order to satisfy the requirements of the second
paragraph of § 112, a claim must accurately define the
invention in the technical sense. See In re Knowlton, 481
F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 492-93 (CCPA 1973). In
addition, while the claim language of claims 32-34 may appear,
for the most part, to be understandable when read in the
abstract, no claim may be read apart from and independent of
the supporting disclosure on which it is based. See In re
Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971).
Applying these principles to the present case, we are of
the opinion that one of ordinary skill in this art would be at
a loss to understand how the disclosed sole can be considered
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007