Appeal No. 1999-2107 Page 5
Application No. 08/926,299
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.
See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d
1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
Vermonet discloses a shoe comprising a first inflatable chamber 18 located in the
sole of the shoe beneath the heel, second and third inflatable air chambers 19 in the sides
of the shoe upper flanking the portion in which the user’s heel fits, and a fourth inflatable air
chamber 20 on the upper edge of the heel portion of the upper. The four chambers are
connected, and a valve 11 is provided to inflate them. They are filled to a moderate
pressure. Because of the connection between them, when high pressure is placed upon
one chamber, the reduction in volume in that chamber is accommodated by being
transmitted to the other chambers in the form of an increase in pressure which, however, is
smaller than if a single chamber had to absorb all of it. With regard to the structure recited
in claim 27, Vermonet does not disclose or teach “a built-in pump attached to the shoe” or,
it follows, “a passage within the shoe establishing fluid communication” between the pump
and the chamber(s) or “a one-way valve attached to the pump.”
Vacarri is directed to a ski boot of the type having a bladder which is inflated by the
user after the boot is put on “so as to firmly lock the foot inside the boot," that is, the user
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007