Appeal No. 2002-0480
Application 09/224,649
Parker discloses a running shoe 10 comprising a sole
structure 12 and an upper 14. The sole structure includes a
midsole 16, and outsole 18 and a compliant and resilient insert
20.
Independent claim 1 recites a shoe comprising, inter alia, a
sole piece having a front section, a middle section, a rear
section, a ground engaging bottom surface and an upper surface on
which the user’s foot is received, wherein
when said shoe is resting on a flat surface, said upper
surface of the sole piece where the foot would rest
would not be parallel to the flat surface and would
have said rear section slightly higher in elevation
than said front section of said sole piece so that when
the user inserts the user’s foot the toes of the user’s
foot face towards the flat surface and are not parallel
with the flat surface.
In determining that Parker meets the foregoing limitations,
the examiner finds that
[a]s can be clearly seen in Figure 1 of Parker, the
sole of the shoe has a top surface that declines from
the heel to the toe when the shoe is placed on a flat
surface without the user’s foot being placed in the
shoe. Therefore, the placement of the user’s foot
within the shoe would have the toes facing the flat
surface and not parallel with the flat surface, angling
forward from the heel to the toes [answer, page 8].
Neither Figure 1 nor any other part of the Parker reference
supports this finding. Even if Figure 1 does show Parker’s shoe
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007