Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
We turn now to claim 133, dependent from claim 123. For
the reason of the indefiniteness of independent claim 123, as
explained above, which indefiniteness is incorporated into
dependent claim 133, we must procedurally reverse the
rejection of claim 133 on prior art, and make a new rejection
thereof, infra, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The sixth rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 122, 131, and
136 through 138 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Jordan, Jr. in view of Studer of Hyatt.
In assessing this rejection, it is important to recognize
that each of dependent claims 122, 131, 136, and 137 addresses
“ribs”, while independent claim 138 recites “protrusions”.
In the examiner’s view, it would have been obvious to
form the “projections/ribs” as taught by either Studer or
Hyatt in the shoe of Jordan, Jr. We disagree for the following
reasons.
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007