Appeal No. 2002-1080 3
Application No. 09/372,149
Claims 1, 8, and 19
McCarthy, the primary reference in each of the examiner’s rejections, is directed
to a lightweight shoe that is adapted to be secured to the foot without any straps, laces,
or other additional fastening elements, such as uppers which exert pressure on the
upper part of the foot (column 1, lines 15-21). To this end, McCarthy utilizes “a
conventional complete shoe bottom, comprising an outer wearing surface and an inner
smooth foot supporting surface, with a layer of pressure sensitive adhesive, on the
inner smooth foot-supporting surface to adhere the shoe bottom to the foot” (column 2,
lines 5-10). McCarthy indicates that the shoe bottom 10 may be made of rubber
(column 2, line 14). McCarthy also indicates that the lightweight shoe may be made
from simple sheet material that is disposable as desired (column 4, lines 5-7).
The examiner’s position to the effect that McCarthy meets all the limitations of
claim 1 except for the requirements that the cushion member is of substantially uniform
thickness and does not have a thickened heel portion is well founded. In this regard,
McCarthy’s sole 10 is a “cushion member” within the broad meaning of that term. In
proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in
appellant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007