Appeal No. 2003-0117
Application 09/747,077
sole. As for the secondary references to Famolare and Taylor,
both of these patents teach bowling shoes having a conventional
elevated arch portion and a conventional raised heel, not a
“wedge-soled bowling shoe.” Thus, we find no teaching,
suggestion or incentive in the collective disclosures and
teachings of Einstein and Famolare, or Einstein and Taylor, for
modifying the footwear of Einstein to provide a “wedge-soled
bowling shoe,” as claimed by appellant.
Moreover, while both Famolare and Taylor teach a bowling
shoe having a sole portion or member with one coefficient of
friction (e.g., 18 of Taylor and 16 of Famolare) and a heel
member (20 of Taylor and 46 of Famolare) which clearly can have a
different coefficient of friction from the sole portion, none of
the references applied by the examiner teaches or suggests a
replaceable sole member having regions of two different
coefficients of friction (e.g., like the regions seen on
replaceable sole member 22 in Figure 3 and replaceable sole
member 54 in Figure 6 of the application drawings) for use on a
wedge-soled bowling shoe. Nor do any of the applied references
teach or suggest the aspect of appellant’s invention as set forth
in method claim 26, and identified on page 4 of the specification
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007