Appeal No. 2002-1080 2
Application No. 09/372,149
and 18), and a saleable package including at least two foot protectors (claims 19 and
20). A further understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of the
appealed claims, which are reproduced in the appendix to appellant’s main brief.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Reed 2,677,906 May 11, 1954
Crane 2,747,301 May 29, 1956
McCarthy 2,985,970 May 30, 1961
Guarrera 3,693,269 Sep. 26, 1972
Greco 4,644,669 Feb. 24, 1987
Kenji et al (Kenji) 5,799,415 Sep. 1, 1998
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are before us for review:
(1) claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16-23, rejected as being unpatentable over McCarthy in
view of Guarrera;
(2) claims 5 and 13, rejected as being unpatentable over McCarthy in view of
Guarrera, and further in view of Crane;
(3) claims 6 and 14, rejected as being unpatentable over McCarthy in view of
Guarrera, and further in view of either Kenji or Reed; and
(4) claims 7 and 15, rejected as being unpatentable over McCarthy in view of
Guarrera, and further in view of Greco.
Reference is made to appellant’s main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 17)
and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 15) for the respective positions of appellant
and the examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007