Appeal No. 2001-2330
Application No. 09/245,443
fastening elements (e.g., 25, 341) and positioning means (211,
311) for accommodating feet of different sizes. Further
explanation of the manner in which shoe of Lin is adjusted is
found at column 2, lines 18-34.
The examiner concedes that Olson’s liner does not meet the
requirement that the liner comprises fore and heel portions
having “respective surfaces arranged to overlap each other in
use, the amount of overlap of said respective surfaces being
adjustable for accommodating feet of different sizes,” as called
for in the last paragraph of claim 1. The examiner takes the 2
position, however, that it would have been obvious in view of
Lin to modify the liner of Olson such that it comprises
overlapping portions that allow for adjustment as called for by
the claims.
Appellant argues, as a threshold issue, that Lin is
nonanalogous art. There are two criteria for determining
whether art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the field
of the inventor’s endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed,
2Based on their direct incorporation of the subject matter
of claim 1 therein, independent claims 12 and 13 also include
these limitation.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007