Appeal No. 2000-1315
Application 09/152,563
or epitome of obviousness and is not rebuttable by the
evidence of non-obviousness (see In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d
792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982)), we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10 as being
unpatentable over Famolare in view of Bauer.
Claim 16 recites “[a] pair of bowling shoes, each of
which is a shoe according to claim 10.” Famolare’s disclosure
(see column 3, lines 53 through 56) of a pair of bowling shoes
having the construction discussed above fully meets these
limitations. Therefore, as was the case with claim 10, we
shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 16 as being unpatentable over Famolare in view of Bauer.
Claim 15 depends from claim 10 and requires the
selectable traction area to be of reduced thickness compared
to a permanent shoe sole area. Although Famolare’s selectable
traction area (slide area 26) does not meet this limitation,
McCord, Leclercq and Trentin demonstrate that this type of
expedient is conventional for accommodating removable or
replaceable sole components while maintaining a co-planar or
flush ground-contacting surface. This self-evident advantage
would have provided the artisan with ample suggestion to
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007