Appeal No. 1997-1268
Application 08/319,096
therein because such stability devices are art recognized
equivalents and substituting one for the other provides the
shoe of Barry et al. '130 with lateral stability in the
rearfoot area and provides high compliance about the forward
roll axis while reducing pronation, as taught by Hannibal."
Appellants argue that "the proposed combination is
infeasible inasmuch as the two references contain
inconsistent teachings, in that the intermediate layer (20)
of Barry is in direct contact with the ground contact layer
(16), whereas the composite layer (37) of Hannibal is remote
from the ground contact layer (16)" (Br5).
We find no motivation in the references to do what the
Examiner suggests. Barry teaches against having the spring
plate 20 "extending over an entire surface of said ground
contact layer" as claimed. Barry teaches that the spring
plate should not extend to the edge at the front "to prevent
the rather sharp edges of the plate from cutting anything or
anyone, and to allow adequate adhesive area between the
overlying midsole and the underlying outsole in these areas"
(col. 4, lines 62-65). Barry teaches that the spring plate
should not extend to the edge at the rear because "[i]f the
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007