Appeal No. 2001-1402
Application 09/287,838
Gourley being argued by appellant, rejection (2) will be
sustained.
Rejection (3)
In making this rejection the examiner asserts that the
pocket 70 disclosed by Williams (Fig. 5 and col. 7, lines 38
to 58) corresponds to the “amusing object” recited in claim
14. However, even assuming this to be correct, we will not
sustain the rejection because we agree with appellant’s
argument (brief, page 11) that the pocket is not “visible from
above in each said combination” as the claim requires. As
indicated by the arrows 40, 42 in Williams Fig. 5, the pocket
would not be visible from above when in use because member 20
is closed by folding it and the pocket 70 medially so that it
is held in an “encapsulatory position” (similar to that shown
in Fig. 4). See col. 7, lines 50 to 58.
Rejection (4)
With regard to independent claims 1 and 8, the basis of
this rejection, as stated on page 5 of the final rejection,
is:
[i]t would be an obvious [sic: have been obvious] for the
object of the shoe as taught by Gourley to be an
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007