Appeal No. 2002-0363
Application No. 08/162,373
the objection in the final rejection to the specification under 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) and
MPEP § 608.01(o) as lacking proper antecedent basis for the term “outsole component”
in the appealed claims. This objection, however, is not directly connected with the
merits of issues involving a rejection of claims and is therefore reviewable by petition to
the Director rather than by appeal to this Board. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395,
1403-1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, it will not be reviewed or
further discussed in this decision.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection
This rejection is based upon the examiner’s determination that the subject matter
on appeal is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to
one skilled in the relevant art that the appellant, at the time of the application was filed,
had possession thereof. Specifically, the examiner finds no support in the original
specification for the various limitations in the appealed claims pertaining to the midsole
(see pages 4-5 and 8 in the examiner’s answer).
The appellant contends that Figures 7A-7C and 9A-9C show a combined
midsole and outersole as element 39 and that the specification supports this structure.
In this vein, the appellant, referencing Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007