Appeal No. 2002-0363
Application No. 08/162,373
The limitations relating to the indentation also are understandable when read in light of
Figure 4 which shows such an indentation.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claims 93, 103, 122-124 and 126-141.3
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of Claim 93 as being unpatentable over
Holcombe
Holcombe, the sole reference applied in this rejection, is directed to a shoe
construction for improving the posture of the wearer (abstract). According to Holcombe:
[m]y shoe construction improves posture through the use of an
upwardly inclined surface for the sole of the foot so that the ball of the foot
as well as the toes are slightly elevated above the heel, the angle of
inclination being about 2-10° with a preferred angle of about 5°. This is
accomplished without substantial change in the exterior appearance of the
shoe by hollowing out the shoe heel to accommodate the heel of the foot
and by raising the inner shoe sole surface in the toe region, with a gradual
transition therebetween (column 1, lines 52-61).
3 Although not indefinite, the appealed claims are rather unartfully
composed. Deserving of correction in the event of further prosecution are the following
informalities:
a) in claim 122 “the sole outer surface” lacks a proper antecedent basis; and
b) in claims 130 and 137 “the sole heel area having the concavely rounded inner
and outer surface portions” (emphasis added) lacks a proper antecedent basis.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007