Appeal No. 2004-0107 Page 9
Application No. 09/963,122
Independent claim 19 contains all of the limitations of claim 13, except that a
sponge layer is adhered to the inner surface of the outer coat and the rubber layer is
adhered to the inside of the sponge layer, which is the reverse of that which is recited in
claim 13. Claim 19 stands rejected on the basis of APA, Dreschler and Nyhagen. As
was the case with claim 15, Nyhagen fails to overcome the problems in combining APA
and Dreschler to meet the basic requirements of the claim, that is, adding a rubber
layer having specific characteristics to a soccer shoe, and thus a prima facie case of
obviousness against claim 19 has not been established by these three references. This
rejection is not sustained.
Independent claim 20 and dependent claims 21 and 22 have been rejected on
the basis of APA in view of Dreschler, Nyhagen and Diaz. Claim 20 recites the same
limitations as claims 13 and 19 regarding the structure of the shoe, except that it does
not specify whether the rubber layer or the sponge layer is adhered to the outer coat,
and it adds a sole member having cleats. Diaz was cited for teaching that it is desirable
under some circumstances to provide cleats to increase the traction of the sole of a
shoe (Answer, page 10). However, Diaz fails to overcome the deficiencies in the
application of APA, Dreschler and Nyhagen to independent claim 20, and therefore a
prima facie case of obviousness has not been established with regard to the subject
matter recited in claim 20 and in dependent claims 21 and 22, and the rejection is not
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007