Appeal No. 2004-1280 Page 4
Application No. 09/630,938
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 26, 29 and 30 as being anticipated by
Crowley. Crowley discloses a molded outsole 10 including an outsole member 12
provided with large studs or cleats 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 and smaller studs or cleats
28, 30, 32, 34 which may be integrally molded of a plastic material such as
polyurethane or polyvinylchloride. Appellant’s only argument against this rejection is
that Crowley’s outsole is distinguishable from appellant’s “chassis” in that appellant’s
claimed apparatus is distinct from and in addition to any outsole (brief, page 11). As
described in appellant’s specification (page 11), an embodiment of the invention
replaces a conventional outsole with a soft outsole and adds the chassis to achieve the
required stiffness.
In proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Moreover, limitations are not to
be read into the claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184,
26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007