Appeal No. 2002-0480
Application 09/224,649
in the orientation it would assume when resting on a flat
surface, with the upper surface of its sole not parallel to the
flat surface and the rear section of the sole slightly higher in
elevation than the front section, there is simply nothing in this
drawing figure which indicates that the sole is structured such
that when the user inserts a foot into the shoe the toes of the
foot would face towards and not be parallel with the flat surface
as recited in claim 1. The examiner’s assertion to the contrary
is purely conjectural. Hence, Parker does not disclose each and
every element of the shoe recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claim
11, as being anticipated by Parker.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2 through 9 and
12 through 14
Claims 2 through 9 and 12 through 14 depend, directly or
indirectly, from independent claim 1. In short, the secondary
references applied by the examiner to support the rejections of
these claims fail to overcome the foregoing deficiency of Parker
with respect to the subject matter recited in parent claim 1.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2 through 4 as being unpatentable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007