Appeal No. 2001-2330
Application No. 09/245,443
toe box, as required by claims 1, 12 and 13. Thus, we consider
that the examiner’s evidence of obviousness is insufficient to
support a conclusion that it also would have been obvious to
incorporate into the liner of Olson a tongue liner extending
away from the toe box.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
standing
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-15.
We have also reviewed the Held reference additionally
applied by the examiner in the rejection of claims 9 and 10, but
find nothing therein that makes up for the deficiencies of Olson
and Lin noted above. Accordingly, we also shall not sustain the
standing
§ 103 rejection of claim 9 and 10.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007