Appeal No. 2002-1087
Application No. 09/320,104
inhibiting slipping as the golfer shifts his weight while
swinging his club). In so doing Peterson, again like appellants,
have provided a shoesole design wherein the medial portion of the
right shoe is different from the medial portion of the left shoe
and wherein the lateral portion of the right shoe is different
from the lateral portion of the left shoe. In contrast to this,
the teachings of Crowley and Hudson are seen as providing shoes
that comprise similar medial portions and similar lateral
portions, which design would simply not provide the sort of
benefit sought by Peterson or appellants (i.e., inhibiting
slipping of a golfer’s feet during downswing).1
In this light, it is apparent that the only suggestion for
modifying Peterson’s shoesoles for golf shoes in the manner
proposed by the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from appellants’ disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
1It is worth noting that golf shoes are conspicuously absent
from Crowley’s disclosure at column 1, lines 11-14, of the types
of shoes the design thereof may be applied to, and that Hudson’s
shoes are specifically designated for use in the sport of tennis.
7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007