Appeal No. 2002-0480
Application 09/224,649
“single low point” are inconsistent in that the single low point
would render the surface unsmooth. Based on the discussion of
the single low point in the underlying specification, it would
seem that the use of the term “point” to define the portion of
the bottom surface in question is somewhat inaccurate. The same
is true of the use of the term “point” to define the “contact
point” recited in these claims.
Also in claims 1 and 27, the recitation that when the single
low point is in contact with the flat surface the “entire”
remaining bottom surface of the sole piece would be tilted
upwardly from the rear section to the front section is
inconsistent with the preceding recitation of the single low
point as being forward of the back end of the rear section. If
the single low point is forward of the back end of the rear
section, the portion of the bottom surface to the rear of the
single low point, which is part of the “entire” remaining bottom
surface, is not accurately defined as being tilted upwardly from
the rear section to the front section.
Furthermore, the recitation in claim 1 that when the shoe is
resting on a flat surface the upper surface of the sole piece
would not be parallel to the flat surface is inconsistent with
the subsequent recitation that when the shoe is resting on a flat
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007