Appeal No. 2004-1202
Application No. 09/908,938
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The first rejection
We cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 through
12, 14 through 17, 19, 21 through 24, 26 through 30, 32, 33, 35,
and 37 through 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by King.
Each of appellant’s independent claims 1, 17, 29, and 30
requires, inter alia, the feature of an upper (overlapping) flap
being more flexible than a lower flap.
In support of the view that the independent claims are
anticipated by, i.e., read on, the teaching of King, the examiner
offers three alternative perspectives (answer, page 3) of the
boot configuration of King (reflected in the color-coded drawing
appended to the answer) that are indicated to respond to the
upper flap recitation of independent claims 1, 17, 29, and 30.4
4 In our view, and contrary to the position taken by the
(continued...)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007