Appeal No. 2002-0363
Application No. 08/162,373
component of this element with the specificity set forth in these claims.
Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection of claims 93, 103, 122-124 and 126-141.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
In large part, this rejection is based on the alleged lack of support in the
specification for the midsole limitations in the appealed claims. While these limitations
do lack such support to the extent indicated above, they nonetheless set out and
circumscribe the midsole element of the claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity, and thus do not pose indefiniteness problems under § 112,
¶ 2.
Also unfounded are the examiner’s concerns that claims 122 and 123 are
indefinite because “the sole heel area doesn’t have a midsole” (answer, page 6), that
claims 126, 134 and 141 are unclear “as to what the ‘horizontal plane’ is” (answer, page
6), and that claim 129 is inaccurate in that “[t]he middle part of the forefoot area doesn’t
have an indentation” (answer, page 6). The limitations pertaining to the sole heel area
having a midsole and to the horizontal plane are readily understandable on their face.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007