Appeal No. 2000-0321 Page 10
Application No. 08/834,578
support therein for the above-noted claim limitation. In 2
fact, it is our view that the application as originally filed
contradicts the above-noted claim limitation since other
auxiliary supporting mechanisms are disclosed (e.g., upraised
arch surface 28 of cushioning member 22; outsole 14). It is
our conclusion that the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has not been complied with in
this instance since the disclosure of the application as
originally filed does not reasonably convey to the artisan
that the inventors had possession at that time of the later
claimed subject matter (i.e., "without the use of any
auxiliary supporting mechanism" as recited in independent
claims 1 and 13).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed and a new rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 15 and
2This claim limitation was added to independent claims 1
and 13 in the amendment filed on February 17, 1998 (Paper No.
40).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007