Appeal No. 2001-1450
Application 08/477,640
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
appellant and the examiner regarding the above-noted rejections,
we refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 32, mailed August 17,
1999), the examiner's answer (Paper No. 44, mailed October 6,
2000), to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 43, filed September 18,
2000) and the reply brief (Paper No. 45 ½, filed December 6,
2000) for a full exposition thereof.
0PINION
Having carefully reviewed the anticipation issues raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Before we specifically address the examiner’s prior art
rejections and appellant’s arguments thereagainst, we find it
necessary to provide some insights into the terminology used in
the claims on appeal. In that regard, we again note that the
claims on appeal are generally directed to the embodiment of
appellant’s invention seen in Figure 15 of the application. As
indicated on page 17 of appellant’s specification, Figure 15
shows “a fully contoured shoe sole design that follows the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007