Appeal No. 2000-1315
Application 09/152,563
dominance. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204,
208 (CCPA 1970).
The scope of claims 12 through 14 is unclear because the
limitations therein requiring the “means for removably
securing” to include structure in or on the bowling shoe tip
are inconsistent with (1) the recitation in parent claim 10
that such means are part of the selectable traction area of
the sole and (2) the fact that the tip is not recited in these
claims as part of the claimed shoe.
The scope of claims 18 through 20 is unclear because the
term “the means for removably securing” therein lacks a proper
antecedent basis (parent claim 17 recites instead “means
removably securable”), and because “the means for removably
securing” as defined in claims 19 and 20 to include structure
attached to the selectable traction area of the sole is
inconsistent with the fact that the shoe and its sole are not
recited in these claims as part of the claimed tip.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through
7, 9, 10 and 12 through 30 is affirmed with respect to claims
10, 15 and 16, and reversed with respect to claims 1 through
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007