Appeal No. 2002-1268
Application 09/282,672
The examiner (see page 4 in the answer) concedes that
neither Huff patent meets the limitations in independent claims 1
and 12 requiring a midsole having an upstanding sidewall
integrally molded with and around its periphery. Huff’s midsole
24 has no such sidewall. Nonetheless, the examiner likens Huff’s
welt material 19 to an upstanding sidewall or rim extending
around the midsole 24 (see page 3 in the answer), and submits
that
[i]t has been held that forming in one piece an article
which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put
together involves only routine skill in the art.
Howard v[.] Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893);
see also In re Heinrich, 268 F.2d 753, 756, 122 USPQ
388, 390 (CCPA 1959). Therefore, it would have been
obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made, to make the midsole and
the upstanding rim of [e]ither of the Huff references
by forming them as one piece, to decrease cost by
eliminating the steps of separately molding the pieces
and fastening them together [answer, page 4].
As is evident from Figure 4 in the Huff patents, however, if
the welt material 19 were integrally molded with the midsole 24,
the midsole would prevent, after the application of the welt
stitch 17, the removal of the detachable pieces 11a and 11b from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007