Appeal No. 98-2413
Application 08/763,549
art of providing an entire connector arrangement like that
seen therein in place of the threaded stud (13) and threaded
hole (3) of Deacon, and not of merely selecting the smooth
surface centering pin (25) as a replacement for the threaded
stud (13).
Stated simply, there is nothing in the prior art
relied upon by the examiner which would have been suggestive
to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing an attachment
means in Deacon “consisting of a cylindrical shank formed of a
plastic material . . . [with] said cylindrical shank having a
smooth outer surface adapted to be threadably received by the
threaded socket of the sole of the sport shoe” (emphasis
added).3
3Claim 13 on appeal sets forth the further requirement
that the cylindrical shank of claim 11 “tapers inwardly from
the proximal end to the terminal end thereof such that the
terminal end of said cylindrical shank is narrower than the
proximal end . . .” (emphasis added). If the shank is
“cylindrical” as expressly required in independent claim 11,
then it follows that it cannot have a tapered configuration
like that set forth in dependent claim 13. The examiner and
(continued...)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007