Appeal No. 2002-0955 Page 2
Application No. 09/511,921
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to athletic shoes having shock-absorbing soles
for use with rigorous activities such as running or court sports (specification, page 1). A
copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Norton et al. (Norton) 4,730,402 Mar. 15, 1988
Kilgore et al. (Kilgore) 5,343,639 Sep. 6, 1994
Luthi et al. (Luthi) 5,461,800 Oct. 31, 1995
The following rejections are before us for review.
(1) Claims 4, 5, 17, 21 and 23-311 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kilgore.
(2) Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kilgore in view of Norton.
(3) Claims 4, 5, 13-15, 21, 23-26 and 28-302 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Luthi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
1 Appellants are not appealing the rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, 10-12, 16 and 18.
2 Appellants are not appealing the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007