Appeal No. 1999-2107 Page 10
Application No. 08/926,299
We reach the same conclusion with regard to claims 31 and 32, which depend from
claim 27, for the same reasons, and therefore will not sustain the rejection of these two
claims.
Independent claim 33 is directed to a method for protecting feet, and contains the
limitations that the pump be connected to the pad by a passage “within the shoe,” and that
there be a “pump cavity having a one-way valve.” Even giving a broad interpretation to the
latter phrase, claim 33 requires a one-way valve, which is not in Cohen’s claim 6, as well
as locating the passage between the pump and the pad within the shoe, which is not
required by claim 6 of the patent. This causes us also to conclude that claim 33 is not
directed to the same or substantially the same subject matter as patent claim 6, and we will
not sustain this rejection.
Claim 36 depends from claim 33, and thus avoids being categorized as the same
or substantially the same subject matter on the same grounds as claim 33. The rejection of
claim 36 is not sustained.
Claim 30 also depends from claim 27 and therefore includes all of the limitations
therein set forth. It further requires that the pad be located in the sole of the shoe, as
opposed to the pad in claim 6, which is specified as being in the upper. Thus, claim 30
avoids being directed to the same or substantially the same subject matter as Cohen’s
claim 6 for the same reasons as claim 27, plus the placement of the pad in the sole, and
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007