Appeal No. 2004-0253
Application 09/933,821
based on appellant’s own teachings. In that regard, we note, as
our court of review indicated in In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992), that it is
impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction
manual or "template" in attempting to piece together isolated
disclosures and teachings of the prior art so that the claimed
invention is rendered obvious.
As for the alternative obviousness rejection wherein the
examiner proposes a modification of Dassler’s shoe sole
arrangement in view of the teachings of Landay, that rejection
falls for the reasons already set forth above, i.e., that Landay
does not teach or suggest the rounded midsole surfaces and
portions, as urged by the examiner, in a completed shoe after
removal from the mold and as viewed in a shoe sole frontal plane
cross-section when the shoe is upright and in an unloaded
condition.
With respect to the rejection of dependent claims 40 through
42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landay and
Dassler as applied above, and further in view of Autry or
Holcombe, we agree with appellant’s assessment (brief, page 31-
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007