Appeal No. 2004-0251
Application 09/853,097
Appellant’s main point of argument regarding claims 127 and
129 centers on this panel’s determination that the dynamically
controlled footwear systems of Gross and Demon each include “a
control system for separately controlling a static and dynamic
characteristic of said enclosed space,” as set forth in claim 127
on appeal. More specifically, appellant urges that we have
incorrectly determined that the control systems of Gross and
Demon provide separate control of a static and dynamic
characteristic because the separate control recitation in claim
127 mandates that the control system “exercises simultaneous
control over two independent characteristics of the footwear”
(request, page 4) and thus permits a plurality of characteristics
to be controlled at any time, while the control systems of Gross
and Demon only control a single variable or characteristic in a
time-dependent manner.
We remain committed to the views expressed on pages 32-40 of
our earlier decision that the footwear systems of Gross and Demon
each include a control system for separately controlling a static
and dynamic characteristic of an enclosed space or bladder of the
footwear therein, albeit in a time-dependent manner, so that
control is exercised over a static characteristic first and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007