Appeal No. 2004-1264
Application 09/909,168
The examiner's statement of the above-noted rejections and
response to appellant's arguments appears on pages 3 through 11
of the supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 19, mailed
December 19, 2003). Appellant's views concerning the examiner's
rejections before us on appeal are found in the brief (Paper No.
13, filed October 31, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
January 16, 2003).
0PINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,
the applied references, and the respective viewpoints of
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
have made the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 28
through 30 and 34 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting, we understand the examiner's
position to be that 1) application claims 28 through 30 and 34
directed to a “shoe cleat” are merely broader than claim 1 of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007