Appeal No. 2002-1080 5
Application No. 09/372,149
Guarrera may be viewed as broadly teaching that an outsole may be configured either
with a separate and distinct integrated heel portion or, in the alternative, a flat ground
contacting surface and no distinct heel portion. Notwithstanding appellant’s argument
to the contrary, we believe the above noted teachings of Guarrera would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that McCarthy’s lightweight shoe invention
comprising a shoe bottom adhered to the bottom of the foot may be made by utilizing
an alternative shoe bottom construction where the shoe bottom does not incorporate an
integrated thickened heel portion but instead comprises an outsole of uniform thickness
with a flat ground contacting surface and no distinct heel portion. Our view in this
regard is bolstered by McCarthy’s teaching, noted above, that the footwear thereof may
be made from a simple sheet of material that is disposable as desired (column 4, lines
5-7).
Appellant’s argument that Figures 7 and 8 of Guarrera cannot be fairly said to
teach or suggest footwear without a thickened heel portion is unconvincing. To begin
with, appellant has not taken into account that the element 10 of McCarthy’s lightweight
shoe invention may comprise a conventional complete shoe bottom (column 2, lines 5-
6). When the combined teachings of McCarthy and Guarrera are considered as a
whole, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the shoe bottom
10 of McCarthy, the outer, or wear, sole layer 18 of Figure 1 of Guarrera and its
replacement member 24, and the outer layer 88 of Figure 7 of Guarrera and its
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007