Appeal No. 2001-1450
Application 08/477,640
rejection of dependent claims 67 through 70 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is somewhat suspect. Moreover, our comments below
regarding claims 22 and 66 apply equally well to independent
claim 63 on appeal and, thus, to dependent claims 67 through 70.
As for the rejection of claims 22 and 66 based on Giese, we
note that the examiner has again provided us with little or no
guidance as to how the claims on appeal are to be read on the
structure in Giese, and has merely pointed to Figures 6-10A of
Giese, urging that this patent shows the concavely rounded
portions as claimed. Since we share appellant’s view set forth
in the brief and reply brief that Giese does not teach a shoe
sole like that defined in claims 22 and 66 on appeal, we refuse
to sustain the examiner’s rejection of those claims under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
In appellant’s shoe sole defined in claims 22 and 66, the
concavely rounded portion forming a part of the shoe sole
underneath portion and located beneath an intended wearer’s foot
sole location is entirely defined by the inner concavely rounded
surface and outer concavely rounded surface which extends through
a lowermost portion of the shoe sole as viewed in a frontal plane
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007