Appeal No. 1998-1430
Application No. 08/376,298
member of uniform thickness. We also appreciate that the
flexible legs 32 and cap members 42 of Derderian project above
the plane of the base members 26 to set off and in part
circumscribe a hollow space. Nevertheless, we can think of no
circumstances under which an artisan, consistent with
appellant’s specification, would construe such structure as
corresponding to the claimed flexible “sheet” of substantially
uniform thickness having “indentations” therein. From our
perspective, Derderian’s base members 26 do not define a
“sheet” (e.g., a thin piece of material having a broad,
generally flat, continuous surface), and Derderian’s legs 32
and cap members 42 do not define “indentations” (e.g.,
structures that are impressed in or stamped from the base
members 26). The examiner’s position to the contrary is
strained and unreasonable. Furthermore, Derderian contains no
teaching of making the insert member as a “sheet” having
“indentations” therein, as now claimed. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections based on Derderian.
Turning to the obviousness rejection based on Staats-Oels
(rejection 3), Staats-Oels discloses a shoe sole component
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007