Appeal No. 2000-0031
Application No. 09/061,526
As additional commentary on the rejection, the examiner
has indicated in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the
final rejection that
[t]he crux of the applicant's design, a foothold having
an upper surface inclined from a central portion towards
end portions, is known. Having a core disposed on a
foothold is known. In the examiner's view, the
means by which the end product is obtained; i.e., by
increasing the thickness of a known core versus utilizing
a known pre- shaped frame, is irrelevant. In view of what is
known to one of ordinary skill in the art, the two are
not patentably distinct.
On page 4 of the answer, after pointing out that
Takahashi coats the metal core therein by placing the core in
a mold and injecting the resin into the mold, the examiner has
expressed his view that
altering the shape of a mold to obtain an end product
is so well known that it would have been as obvious to
have utilized a linear core with a mold shaped to form
a tread with increasing thickness, as it would have been
to have disposed a uniform core on an angled core.
Additionally the applicant presents, on page 2 of the
present application, first and second modifications;
wherein the first modification is the linear core with a
tread of increasing thickness; and wherein the second
modification is an inclined core disposed with a
linear tread. The examiner believes this is evidence that
the applicant considers the two modifications to be
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007