Appeal No. 2000-0031
Application No. 09/061,526
obvious alternatives to one another.
Appellant argues, and we strongly agree, that Takahashi
and Watsham, whether considered alone or in combination, do
not teach or even remotely suggest increasing the thickness of
a resin covering of a tread of a foothold from the central
portion of the tread to end portions of the tread, as required
in the independent claims on appeal. In addition, appellant
urges that it is only by looking to the disclosure of the
present application that one of ordinary skill in the art
would be taught what the shape of a mold should be to form
appellant’s claimed foothold, since both Takahashi and Watsham
are silent with regard to an increasing thickness tread of the
type set forth in the claims on appeal. Appellant denies that
he considers or admits that the modifications or alternate
embodiments set forth in the specification of his application
are “obvious” modifications of each other, as the examiner
seems to believe, and urges that the examiner has used
impermissible hindsight derived from appellant’s own teachings
in attempting to reject the claims on appeal based on
Takahashi in view of Watsham.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007