Appeal No. 2004-1280 Page 2
Application No. 09/630,938
difficulty and expense of trying to provide these properties in a traditionally molded
outsole” (specification, page 2). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the
appendix to the appellant’s brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Thomas 444,735 Jan. 13, 1891
Trolle 1,141,889 Jun. 1, 1915
Lorenzi et al. (Lorenzi) 1,684,676 Sep. 18, 1928
Cameron 3,739,497 Jun. 19, 1973
Crowley 4,393,604 Jul. 19, 1983
Tong et al. (Tong) 5,185,943 Feb. 16, 1993
Barre et al. (Barre) 5,473,827 Dec. 12, 1995
Barma et al. (Barma) 5,546,680 Aug. 20, 1996
Giese et al. (Giese) 5,572,805 Nov. 12, 1996
Kendall 5,713,143 Feb. 3, 1998
Brown D446,917 Aug. 28, 2001
(filed Apr. 26, 2000)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 26, 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Crowley.
Claims 1, 4-9, 19-21, 26-29 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Tong.
Claims 26 and 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Trolle in view of Barma.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007