Appeal No. 2004-0107 Page 5
Application No. 09/963,122
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the
ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Id. Applying the guidance of our reviewing
court leads us to conclude that none of the phrases in issue is indefinite, and this
rejection should not be sustained. Our reasoning follows.
In claims 13, 19 and 20, the outer coat (flexible upper) of the shoe is recited as
being “thin enough” to be used in a soccer shoe. The meaning of this limitation would,
in our view, readily be determinable by one skilled in the art, who would be expected to
know whether an outside coat is too thick or too thin to be suitable for ordinary soccer
play. We reach the same conclusion, for the same reason, with regard to the limitations
in claims 13, 19 and 20 that the rubber layer be “thin enough not to dull” the user’s foot
to a soccer ball and “providing an elasticity” to contribute to a repulsive force and to
alleviate pain in the foot caused by kicking, inasmuch as these also are factors with
which the artisan can be expected to have a great deal of expertise. The same is true
of the limitation in claim 20 that the rubber layer is “sufficiently thick” to minimize pain to
the foot caused by kicking a soccer ball. Further in this regard, we point out that the
appellants have set out on pages 5, 7 and 10 of the specification the thickness of the
rubber layer that will meet these limitations, and have recited it in claims 14 and 22.
Thus, in addition to the knowledge that should be attributed to one of ordinary skill in
the art of soccer shoes, the specification provides guidance to the artisan that will
accomplish the stated goals.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007