Appeal No. 1999-2107 Page 2
Application No. 08/926,299
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an apparatus for protecting feet (claims 27, 30-
32, 34, 37 and 38), a method for protecting feet (claims 33, 35, 36 and 48), and to a foot
protection system (claim 43). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 27, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Vaccari 4,232,459 Nov. 11, 1980
Vermonet 4,361,969 Dec. 7, 1982
Cohen et al. (Cohen) 5,158,767 Oct. 27, 1992
Claims 27 and 30-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 34, 37, 38, 43 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.1
Claims 27, 30-38, 43 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vermonet in view of Vaccari.
1Claims 37 and 38 should have been listed with claim 34, from which they depend.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007