Appeal No. 2001-1450
Application 08/477,640
concavely rounded surface which extends through a lowermost
portion of the shoe sole as viewed in a frontal plane (Fig. 15),
and that no such structure is found in Bretschneider.
In the final analysis, we are of the view that the
examiner’s broad claim construction set forth on pages 4 and 5 of
the answer is in error, and that appellant’s assessment of the
claimed limitations as reflected in the brief and reply brief is
the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification.
As a result of the foregoing, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 22, 63, 64, 66 through 70, 72, 88, 89, 92 through 94 and
96 through 101 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly
anticipated by Bretschneider will not be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 22 and
66 through 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Giese. As an initial point, we note, as did appellant (brief,
page 12), that claims 67 through 70 are dependent from
independent claim 63, and claim 63 has not been rejected by the
examiner based on the patent to Giese. Thus, the examiner’s
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007