Appeal No. 1998-2081
Application No. 08/562,009
Leahy et al. (Leahy) 2,607,061 Aug. 19, 1952
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are before
us for review:
(a) claims 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 20 and 21, unpatentable over
Cohn in view of Hurley;
(b) claims 3-5 and 9-11, unpatentable over Cohn in view
of Hurley, and further in view of Leahy;
(c) claims 12-15 and 22-24, unpatentable over Cohn in
view of Hurley, and further in view of Blakely; and
(d) claims 16-18, unpatentable over Cohn in view of
Hurley, and further in view of Blakely and Leahy.
Reference is made to appellants’ brief and reply brief
(Paper Nos. 11 and 14) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
12) for the respective positions of appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of the rejections.
Considering first the standing rejection of claims 1, 2,
6-8, 12, 20 and 21 as being unpatentable over Cohn in view of
Hurley, Cohn, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
shoe of goodyear welt construction (page 1, left column, lines
1-3) comprising an upper 4, an insole 3 having a forward
portion and a rear heel portion, an outsole 1 having a forward
portion and a rear heel portion, a heel 19, 21, nails 18, 20,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007