Appeal No. 2004-0136 Page 8 Application No. 09/761,340 added). We interpret this claim to be so broad as not to require that cables be located on both sides of the rear ankle portion, but merely on either the medial or the lateral side of the boot. Such is the case in the boots disclosed by Battistella, and therefore we shall sustain this rejection of claim 102. (2) The second rejection under Section 102 is that Claims 57-59, 65, 68 and 69 are anticipated by Spademan. We find ourselves in agreement with the positions taken by the examiner in this rejection, and we will sustain it. Looking first to claim 57, Spademan discloses a forward lean boot comprising, to the same extent as the appellants’ invention, a medial cable member extending from anchor point 16 to a common attachment means 10 and a lateral cable member extending from anchor point 20 to common attachment means 10. We regard attachment means 10 as being attached “to the forward portion of the boot,” as is required by the claim, inasmuch as it is located forward of the rear of the boot. In this regard, the appellants have not pointed out why the Spademan location should not be considered to meet this limitation of the claim, and we note the similar location of the attachment means in the illustration of the appellants’ invention in Figure 3 of the drawings. An adjustable tension member 11 comprising guiding grooves 12 and 13 is connected to the Spademan cable members “for altering the length of the cable members,” to the same extent as the appellants’ invention does so. Further in thisPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007