Appeal No. 2000-2061 Page 7
Application No. 08/463,843
article claims 27, 30, 42, 51 and 52, which require a continuous cavity. This rejection of
the independent claims and, it follows, of those claims depending therefrom, is not
sustained.
The Rejection Based Upon Funck, Desma-Werke, Huh And Vibram
This rejection applies to independent claim 29 and dependent claims 17, 19, 22,
24, 31-33 and 49, all of which contain the limitation regarding continuous mold extension or
continuous cavity, that has been discussed in the preceding section of this opinion. Huh
and Vibram have been added by the examiner to the basic combination of references with
regard to additional limitations recited in these claims which relate to the relationship
between the insole and the insert. Be that as it may, neither Huh nor Vibram alleviate the
problem with the combination of Funck and Desma-Werke that was discussed above.
This being the case, we will not sustain this rejection, either.
The Rejection Based Upon Makovski And Desma-Werke
Claims 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 35-27, 30, 34, 39-43 and 47 stand rejected here.
Makovski is directed to the manufacture of lightweight footwear, such as slippers
(column 1, lines 15 and 16). Disclosed in this reference is a method in which an upper 16
and a sole 34 are formed around a last 10 that comprises a mold insert 12 on the bottom.
The disclosed method of making a footwear article from this last includes attaching a cord
18 to the last margin of the upper in order to draw it into contact with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007