Appeal No. 2002-1080 14
Application No. 09/372,149
We likewise shall not sustain the standing rejection of claims 10-12, 16 and
20 as being unpatentable over McCarthy in view of Guarrera since these claims either
depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of claim 9.
As to claims 13-15, the Crane reference additionally applied in the rejection of
claim 13, the Kenji and Reed references additionally applied in the rejection of claim 14,
and the Greco reference additionally applied in the rejection of claim 15 do not cure the
deficiencies of McCarthy noted above. Hence, the rejection of these claims also shall
not be sustained.
Claims 17 and 18
Claim 17 is directed to a method of providing a foot protector like that of claim
1 and includes the step of applying the cushion member to a user’s foot such that the
tack adhesive layer contacts the sole of the foot. Our reasoning as set forth in our
treatment of claim 1 supra applies. We shall sustain the rejection of claim 17 since in
4(...continued)
layers 24 and 25, renders any of appellant’s claims unpatentable. In this regard, it is
noted that appellant’s sheet member 110 may be formed of cloth fibers (specification,
page 5, lines 13-16).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007