Appeal No. 2004-0253
Application 09/933,821
examiner has now indicated (answer, page 8) that the rejections
of claims 48, 51 and 52 have been withdrawn, and that these
claims (like claim 43) are also objected to and allowable. Thus,
the appeal as to claims 48, 51 and 52 is dismissed, leaving only
claims 21 through 34, 36, 37, 39 through 42, 44 through 47, 49,
50, 53, 55 through 57, 59 and 60 for our consideration on appeal.
Appellant’s invention relates to a shoe sole construction
and, more particularly, to a contoured sole structure that
conforms to the natural shape of the foot sole, including the
bottom and sides, when the foot sole deforms naturally during
locomotion, thereby permitting the foot to react naturally with
the ground as it would if the foot were bare, while continuing to
provide a cushioned stable support base for the foot and ankle.
In addition, appellant’s invention relates to the use of
deformation sipes or slits (e.g., 181, 182) in the shoe sole to
provide it with enhanced flexibility to parallel the frontal
plane deformation of the foot, which creates a stable base that
is wide and flat even when tilted sideways in natural pronation
and supination motion in extreme exercise. Figure 9D of the
application drawings best exemplifies the invention defined in
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007