Appeal No. 2004-1280 Page 10
Application No. 09/630,938
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any of appellant’s arguments with
regard to the rejection of claim 26 as being unpatentable over Trolle in view of Barma
persuasive. It follows that we shall sustain the rejection of claim 26, as well as
dependent claims 29-31 which appellant has not separately argued apart from claim 26
(see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)).
We shall not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-10 and 19 as being
unpatentable over Lorenzi. In short, Lorenzi’s stiffening plate 4 cannot reasonably be
considered to comprise “a plurality of elongated elements defining at least one space
therebetween extending from a forwardmost extent of the forefoot portion and
terminating in the midfoot portion” as recited in claim 1. While the central tongue 5 and
the arcuate peripheral portions of the stiffening plate 4 in the forefoot region may be
considered to be a plurality of elongated elements defining two spaces therebetween,
neither of those spaces extends from a forwardmost extent of the forefoot portion as
called for in appellant’s claim 1, as well as claims 4, 6-10 and 19 depending therefrom.
Thus, even if Lorenzi’s metal stiffening plate were modified so as to be formed of
polymeric material as proposed by the examiner on page 5 of the answer, this would not
result in appellant’s claimed invention.
With regard to claim 26, which merely calls for an article of footwear including a
sole with at least one cleat, the sole comprising a generally planar polymeric chassis
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007