Appeal No. 2003-0117
Application 09/747,077
reasonable degree of precision and particularity, and thus fully
comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
In light of the foregoing, we must refuse to sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 through 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7
through 9, 11 through 13, 15 through 19 and 21 through 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Einstein in view of
either Famolare or Taylor, we share appellant’s view that neither
Einstein, Famolare, nor Taylor teaches or suggests a “wedge-soled
bowling shoe.” While Einstein teaches a shoe with a replaceable
sole, which sole could apparently be that of a bowling shoe (col.
4, line 1), Einstein does not teach or suggest a “wedge-soled
bowling shoe” like that set for in the claims before us on
appeal. In our view, the fact that the sandal-type shoe seen in
Figure 5 of Einstein has a wedge-sole and can be used with
replaceable sole members like those seen in Figures 7-10 of that
patent does not teach, and would not have been suggestive to one
of ordinary skill in the art of a bowling shoe having a wedge-
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007