Appeal No. 2003-1349 Page 6
Application No. 09/768,969
The upper work shoe body (1) of Bulzomi includes reflective material (6), such as
perforated aluminum foil, placed between the outer (16) and inner (17) leather
surfaces. Bulzomi teaches that this reflective material (6) reflects radiant heat away
form the wearer's foot and that such heat develops from the air flowing from the sole,
as well as from the exterior asphalt bed and tar material that may adhere to the sides of
the shoe. Reflective material (6) has a concavity, wherein it adapts itself to the
curvature of the upper part of the shoe upper in which it is placed. Thus, Bulzomi
teaches that his heat vented work shoe provides significantly lower inside shoe
temperatures for the wearer, while walking over intensely hot asphalt or tar or other
road material.
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Bulzomi and claim 9, it is our opinion that
there is no difference. The appellant argues that Bulzomi lacks the claimed radiant
barrier1 and that the teachings of either Oatman or Latzke would not have made it
1 A radiant barrier sandwiched between the outer covering and the inner covering, the radiant
barrier being adapted to reflect heat inwardly into the cavity.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007