Appeal No. 1999-2103
Application No. 08/734,205
ridges of the Baylo rain shoe spike as proposed by the
examiner. Accordingly, we shall not sustain rejection (4).
Turning finally to the examiner's rejection of claim 20
as being unpatentable over Baylo in view of Castioni and
Zaleski, we have reviewed the teachings of Zaleski and find no
teaching or suggestion therein to modify the shape of the
ridges of Baylo's rain shoe spike to arrive at the claimed
invention. It follows then that we shall also not sustain
rejection (6).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Studer and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Studer in view of Zaleski is affirmed. The
examiner's decision to reject claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baylo in view of either
Lorme or Castioni and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baylo in view of either Lorme and
Castioni and further in view of Zaleski is reversed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007