Appeal No. 2002-0955 Page 3
Application No. 09/511,921
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 13 and 15) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Rejection (1)
Kilgore discloses a shoe comprising, inter alia, a midsole having upper and lower
plates 28, 30 and a plurality of compliant elastomeric support elements 32, 132, 232,
332 disposed in an open area defined between the plates. With respect to claims 4, 21
and 24, which call for one or more shock-absorber elements being “generally ellipsoidal
in shape,” the examiner takes the position that the “barrel-shaped” (see column 14,
lines 36-42) support elements 332 illustrated in Figures 9e and 9f are “generally
ellipsoidal in shape.”
Both the examiner and appellants agree that the definition of an ellipsoid is “a
geometric surface, all of whose plane sections are either ellipses or circles” (see brief,
page 10, and answer, page 6). The issue in dispute, however, is what is meant by the
claim terminology “generally ellipsoidal” used in claims 4, 21 and 24. Appellants point
out on page 10 of their brief that not all plane sections taken through the barrel-shaped
support elements 332 of Kilgore are either ellipses or circles. From our observation,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007