Appeal No. 2004-0146
Application 09/851,911
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 13 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) based on Ellis, we have reviewed the
applied Ellis reference and, like appellant, find no teaching or
disclosure therein of a sole portion having a bottom surface with
a densely packed matrix of projections extending therefrom and
wherein “each projection has a nominal length of 3/16 inch or
greater, and a nominal width of 1/8 inch or greater,” as
specifically set forth in independent claim 1, from which
claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 depend. The examiner’s assertion on
page 3 of the answer that “[i]t would appear the projections
[of Ellis] have the dimensions as claimed,” would seem to be
based entirely on speculation and conjecture, since the examiner
has pointed to no such disclosure in Ellis or provided any
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007