Appeal No. 2004-2239
Application No. 09/975,417
retaining plate springs back into a locking
position, and thereby locks the rear tongue
of the road type bicycle shoe cleat thereto;
and
c. said bottom side having a second bottom toe
cleat clamp which is smaller than said first
top toe cleat clamp of said top side and
conforms to a bottom of a mountain bicycle
type shoe cleat, the second bottom toe cleat
clamp of said bottom side having a front
locking member located adjacent to said
front top rear spring-loaded retaining plate
of said top side for receiving a front
tongue of the mountain bicycle type shoe
cleat, said bottom side also having a second
bottom rear spring-loaded retaining member
pivotable on said main body such that a rear
tongue of the mountain bicycle type shoe
cleat engages inside a recess of the second
bottom rear spring-loaded retaining plate of
said bottom side, where the second bottom
rear spring-loaded plate of said bottom side
springs back into a locking position, and
thereby locks the rear tongue of the
mountain bicycle type shoe cleat thereto.
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Gapinski et al. 6,035,743 Mar. 14, 2000
(Gapinski) (filed Mar. 18, 1998)
Claims 5 through 8 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Gapinksi. (Answer at 3-6; final
Office action at 2-13.)
Because the examiner has not provided an adequate basis for
denying the appellant’s claim for benefit of an earlier filing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007