Appeal No. 2004-0253
Application 09/933,821
Landay to provide custom support for a specific wearer or
activity.”
In the alternative obviousness rejection based on Dassler in
view of Landay, the examiner contends that Dassler shows a shoe
having a bottom sole (20) and a midsole (19) which has a
plurality of slits therein (around element 14) “substantially as
claimed except for rounded side portions.” The examiner then
turns to Landay, urging that this patent teaches forming midsole
sides with rounded inner and outer surfaces (Figs. 1 and 9a).
From the collective teachings of the applied prior art, the
examiner concludes (answer, page 4) that it would have been
obvious “to make the sides rounded as taught by Landay in the
shoe of Dassler ‘046 to make the shoe better sealed, more
comfortable, and to increase the durability of the shoe.”
For the reasons aptly set forth by appellant in the brief
and reply brief, we will not sustain the examiner’s above-noted
rejections of claims 21 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 44 through 47,
49, 50, 53, 55 through 57, 59 and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Like appellant, it is clear to us that the rubber outsole (12) of
Landay, in going from the flat condition seen in Figure 6 of that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007