Appeal No. 2004-0131
Application No. 08/462,531
combination both of sole thickness greater than the
theoretically ideal stability plane and of midsole
densities variations like those just described are
also possible but not shown.
The above passage clearly conveys to the skilled artisan the
concept of combining both appellant’s sole thickness selection
technique with appellant’s midsole densities selection technique
in forming appellant’s shoe sole invention.
We note that Figures 4, 5, and 28 depict variations in sole
thicknesses, whereas Figures 6, 29, 30, and 32 depict variation
in midsole densities.
As pointed out by appellant on page 14 of the brief, how to
select the degree of thickness and the degree of firmness/density
is adequately described in the specification. Appellant
concludes that selecting a combination of both a specific degree
of thickness and a specific degree of firmness is therefore also
adequately described. Brief, pages 13-14. We agree for the
following reasons.
The following passages describe how sole thickness is
selected, and how midsole density variation is selected.
With regard to shoe sole thickness variation, Figure 4 is
an example of variation in shoe sole thickness. The
specification discloses that preferred shoe sole embodiments are
sufficiently firm to provide the wearer’s foot with the
structural support necessary to maintain normal pronation and
supination, as if the wearer’s foot were bare. Specification,
page 54, lines 21-24. The preferred shoe sole embodiments
include the structural and material flexibility to deform in
parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer’s foot sole as
if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot
biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007