Appeal No. 98-1538
Application No. 08/698,470
to have a rear plane or section which is of a thickness that
is less than the substantially constant thickness of the
forward plane or toe section inasmuch as, according to the
specification (see page 8), they are of the same thickness at
least where they meet. Thus, the language in these claims
when read in light of the specification results in an
inexplicable inconsistency that renders them indefinite.
In summary:
The rejection of claims 1, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Fox is sustained.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 based
on the combined teachings of Whitaker and either Simoglou or
Hackner and claims 28 and 29 based on the combined teachings
of Whitaker, either Simoglou or Hackner, and Monier are
sustained.
The rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Fox is reversed.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 32 and
33 as being unpatentable over Whitaker in view of either
Simoglou or Hackner and claims 1, 31, 33 and 34 as being
unpatentable over Whitaker in view of Fox are reversed.
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007