Appeal No. 2001-2330
Application No. 09/245,443
Olson in view of Lin is not well taken. From our perspective,
Lin’s adjustable heel and toecap are more akin to Olson’s
overlapping toe (34) and heel (30) portions than to Olson’s
liner (110). Furthermore, in that Olson’s liner includes an
expandable section (116) that enables the liner to stretch to
accommodate various foot sizes, we are in accord with
appellant’s argument on page 7 of the main brief to the effect
that there would be no need for providing a two-piece liner in
Olson. Where, as here, the prior art references require a
selective combination to render obvious a claimed invention,
there must be some reason for the combination other than
hindsight gleaned from the invention disclosure. Interconnect
Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551
(Fed. Cir. 1985). In the fact situation before us, we are
unable to agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated by the teachings of Lin to
incorporate the overlapping heel and toecap adjustment feature
thereof into the liner of Olson.
In addition, we do not agree with the examiner that Lin
teaches a liner having a tongue extending rearwardly from the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007