Appeal No. 2004-0127 Page 2
Application No. 09/765,605
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a waterproofed and vapor-permeable sole for
shoes. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Dassler 4,100,685 Jul. 18, 1978
Ohashi 4,771,555 Sep. 20, 1988
Polegato 5,983,524 Nov. 16, 1999
Squadroni 6,282,813 Sep. 04, 2001
(filed Dec. 10, 1999)
Claims 1 and 3-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Dassler in view of Ohashi, Polegato and Squadroni.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 16) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 14) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 17) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
1A rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Margolin in view of
Simmons and Polegato was withdrawn in the Answer (page 11).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007