Appeal No. 2002-0363
Application No. 08/162,373
satisfied that such disclosure would reasonably convey to the artisan that the appellant
had possession at that time of a shoe sole comprising a combined midsole and
outersole (collectively shown as element 39 in, for example, Figures 7A-7C). However,
in our opinion, this broad disclosure of a combined midsole and outsole would not
reasonably convey to the artisan that the appellant had possession at that time of a
shoe sole comprising the particular midsole configuration set forth in the appealed
claims. By way of example, the disclosure lacks original support for the limitations in
representative claim 93 requiring “at least the midsole extending into the sidemost
section of at least the sole side of the sole forefoot area having the concavely rounded
inner and outer surface portions, as viewed in a shoe sole frontal plane during an
unloaded, upright shoe condition” and
at least an upper part of the midsole of the sidemost section of the sole
side of the sole forefoot area having the concavely rounded inner and
outer surface portions extending up the sole side at least to the height of a
lowest point of the sole inner surface of the same shoe sole side, as
viewed in the shoe sole frontal plane during an unloaded, upright shoe
condition.
The other independent claims on appeal, claims 103, 122, 128 and 135, contain similar
limitations lacking the requisite support (see page 4 in the answer), as do dependent
claims 123, 124, 130-132 and 137-139. Although the original disclosure does describe
a combined midsole and outersole element 39, it does not describe the midsole
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007