Appeal No. 2004-0253
Application 09/933,821
we refer to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed May 19,
2003) and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 15, filed April 29,
2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed July 24, 2003) for a
full exposition thereof.
0PINION
Having carefully reviewed the obviousness issues raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Before we specifically address the examiner’s prior art
rejections and appellant’s arguments thereagainst, we direct
attention to the marked-up version of Figure 9D shown on page 4
of appellant’s brief for a better understanding of the various
sole portions or sections and other relationships defined in the
claims on appeal, particularly the “at least one convexly rounded
portion of the inner midsole surface,” the “at least one
concavely rounded portion of the outer midsole surface” and the
“rounded portion of the midsole located between said convexly
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007