Appeal No. 2001-1076 Page 5
Application No. 09/231,677
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal reads as
follows:
In a U-shaped horseshoe having a central bight, an
arm extending from each end of said bight, and a tip on
the other end of each arm, said horseshoe including a
metal shoe having a wear surface for contact with the
ground and an oppositely facing flat surface, a flat
resilient pad having a first surface facing and
overlaying said flat surface of the shoe and a second
flat surface on its opposite side to lay directly against
the hoof, the improvement comprising: a recess in the
flat surface of the metal shoe in each of said arms,
spaced from each respective tip and located in the region
near the tip where a nail cannot effectively be driven
into the hoof when the horseshoe is nailed to the hoof,
said recess having a wall, and a stud on said first
surface of said pad, said stud being so proportioned as
to fit closely in said recess in contiguity with the wall
of the recess, and a layer of cement between and joining
the flat surface of the metal shoe to the first surface
of the pad, and the stud to the wall of the recess.
Thus, all the claims under appeal require a stud on the
first surface of the pad with the stud being proportioned to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007