Appeal No. 1998-0210
Application No. 08/149,193
Notwithstanding our full appreciation of the Jordan, Jr.
document as a highly relevant reference, it is our viewpoint 16
that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to alter the track shoe cleat of Jordan, Jr. based
upon either the Studer or Hyatt teaching, as proposed by the
examiner. As we see it, such a consequential modification
would not have been made since an advantage or benefit would
not have been perceived by one having ordinary skill in the
art for altering bristles on a track shoe intended for use on
turf (Jordan, Jr.) to provide either a radially grooved and
hardened hemispherical stud shape recognized as suitable for
mountain climbing shoes as disclosed by Studer or a spur or
projection ice-creeper configuration intended to roughen and
take hold of ice as described by Hyatt. It is for this reason
that the rejection of these claims is not sound.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
16We apply the Jordan, Jr. reference in a new ground of
rejection for claim 138, infra.
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007