Appeal No. 2004-1235
Application No. 09/845,643
the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 13 and 16 through
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
However, the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claims 6
and 7 is on different footing. Although the generally U-shaped
caddy described in Giglio is capable of being attached to a shoe,
we find no motivation or suggestion to combine Giglio’s caddy
with a shoe as indicated by the appellant at page 4 of the Brief.
On this record, the examiner has not explained why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine Giglio’s
caddy with a shoe, knowing the shape of Giglio’s caddy (i.e.,
“the end bent at an angle” which would have expected to cause
discomfort to a person wearing a shoe).
It follows that Giglio would not have rendered the subject
matter defined by claims 6 and 7 obvious within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 9,
10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Giglio and Kennedy. The disclosure of Giglio is
discussed above. The Giglio does not mention employing “at least
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007