Appeal No. 2001-1402
Application 09/287,838
elongate strip” as claimed, because, as appellant defines
“elongate” on page 6 of the specification, the length must be
at least one and one-half times greater than the width.
However, according to appellant’s own measurements (brief,
page 7), Meier’s base member (bottom portion) is 1d (1.375)
inches wide by 2¼ (2.25) inches long. Since this calculates
as a length which is 1.636 times greater than the width,
Meier’s bottom portion 3 meets appellant’s definition of
“elongate.” Also, bottom portion 3 extends lengthwise beneath
the shoe closure in that it is under the portion 18 of the
laces.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and recites that the
figurine is releasably secured to the strip. This limitation
is not readable on the Meier apparatus, since figurine 2 is
shown as
being integrally molded with top portion 4 (see Fig. 4), and
top portion 4 is permanently attached to bottom portion 3 by
hinges 11.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007