Appeal No. 2005-1051 12
Application No. 09/788,147
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claim
10, as being unpatentable over Parisotto in view of Fuerst.
VI. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 11 and 13
through 15 as being unpatentable over Dyer in view of Fuerst
The only suggestion for modifying the outsole disclosed by
Dyer in view of Fuerst to overcome the admitted failure of Dyer
to respond to the limitations in independent claim 1 requiring a
recessed wall surface and recessed region in the outsole stems
from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the
appellant’s disclosure.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 5, 6, 11 and
13 through 15, as being unpatentable over Dyer in view of Fuerst.
VII. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 15,
17 through 23 and 27 through 29 as being unpatentable over Pavone
in view of Fuerst
The only suggestion for modifying the outsole disclosed by
Pavone in view of Fuerst to overcome the admitted failure of
Pavone to respond to the limitations in independent claims 1, 22
and 26 (from which claims 27 through 29 depend) requiring a
recessed wall surface and recessed region in the outsole stems
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007