Appeal No. 2001-1398
Application 09/289,171
removable. Thus, this member, with its plugs and/or weights, can
be viewed as an “insert” in the sense recited by claim 1.
Moreover, the “insert” limitation also finds response in each of
the resilient and flexible weights added to the Shanahan shoe in
view of Miyata. Indeed, the limitations in claim 1 are so broad
that they are fully met by Miyata alone, specifically the Miyata
embodiment wherein weight chambers 6 are formed in removable
insole 11 to embed weight chambers 8 therein, such that the
weighted insole can be removed from the shoe to attain an
ordinary light-weight training shoe.3
In light of the foregoing, the applied references (Shanahan
and Miyata) justify the examiner’s conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in claim 1 and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made. Therefore, we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2,
3, 5, 8 through 10 and 21 which stand or fall therewith, as being
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007