Appeal No. 2004-1280 Page 12
Application No. 09/630,938
Claim 28 depends from claim 26 and further recites that the chassis comprises a
plurality of elongated elements extending generally from a heel portion to a toe portion.
While it is true that Lorenzi’s stiffening plate 4 is a one-piece unitary structure, this
structure includes medial and lateral peripheral portions and a central tongue, which
may reasonably be considered to be elongated elements, with the medial and lateral
portions having midfoot, forefoot and rearfoot portions and extending from a heel portion
to a toe portion. We note that appellant’s plurality of finger-shaped elements in the
embodiments of Figures 1 and 2, for example, are part of a unitary structure but are still
defined by appellant as elongated elements or fingers. With that in mind, we find
nothing in claim 28 which precludes the elongated elements being connected as part of
a unitary structure. The rejection of claim 28 as being unpatentable over Lorenzi is
sustained.
We shall not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-23 and 39 as being
unpatentable over Giese in view of Tong or in view of Brown and Thomas. The
stabilizer 19 of the embodiments of Figures 111-116 of Giese starts at the back of the
heel and extends to just short of the ball of the foot by design so that it stiffens the rear
of the bottom but permits it to flex at the ball of the foot (see column 10, lines 59-62,
which discusses the basic internal comfort stabilizer). Thus, Giese actually teaches
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007