Appeal No. 2005-1051 11
Application No. 09/788,147
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 5 through 9
as being unpatentable over Duclos in view of Fuerst
For the reasons expressed above, the examiner’s reliance on
Fuerst to overcome the admitted failure of Duclos to respond to
the limitations in independent claim 1 requiring a cushion having
a lower surface spaced by the recessed wall surface of the
outsole above the floor or ground surface at all times including
when the cushion deforms and flows under the wearer’s weight and
force of heel strike is unsound.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 5 through
9, as being unpatentable over Duclos in view of Fuerst.
V. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 10 as being
unpatentable over Parisotto in view of Fuerst
For the reasons expressed above, the examiner’s reliance on
Fuerst to overcome the admitted failure of Parisotto to respond
to the limitations in independent claim 1 requiring a cushion
having a lower surface spaced by the recessed wall surface of the
outsole above the floor or ground surface at all times including
when the cushion deforms and flows under the wearer’s weight and
force of heel strike is unsound.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007