Appeal No. 2001-1076 Page 7
Application No. 09/231,677
However, this modification of Phreaner would not result in the
claimed subject matter. In that regard, there is no teaching
or suggestion in the applied prior art of (1) a stud on the
first surface of the pad ; (2) a layer of cement between and2
joining the stud to a wall of a recess formed in the flat
surface of the metal shoe ; and (3) the recess being located3
in the region near the tip where a nail cannot effectively be
driven into the hoof when the horseshoe is nailed to the
hoof . 4
2A rivet passing through Phreaner's metal body 10 and
laminated pad 11 is not readable on being a stud on the first
surface of the pad.
3The examiner's position that Phreaner's cement A
provided between the metal body 10 and the laminated pad 11
would seep into the recess (i.e., the hole provided in the
metal body to accommodate the rivet) as well as the nail holes
14 is sheer speculation unsupported by any evidence. Phreaner
teaches (column 3, lines 23-48) that the metal body 10 and the
laminated pad 11 with cement A therebetween are firmly pressed
together and heated in an oven to cure the cement to form an
integrated horseshoe. Thus, any rivets suggested by Coleman
may have either (1) replaced Phreaner's cement A provided
between the metal body 10 and the laminated pad 11, or (2)
been applied after the curing of the cement so that there
would not be a layer of cement between and joining the rivet
to a wall of a recess formed in the flat surface of the metal
shoe.
4There is no teaching or suggestion in Coleman of
locating a rivet in the region near the tip of the horseshoe
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007