Appeal No. 2005-2544
Application No. 09/328,749
adjacent surface of the web or flat base portion (113) of the
torsion system.
To account for the above identified differences between the
claimed subject matter of appellant’s invention and that of
Anderie, the examiner relies on the patents to Dubner and
Kraeuter, urging that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to make the forefoot and rearfoot
portions of Anderie’s torsion system “as shown in Dubner ‘621 to
give support to the largest area of the user’s foot and to spread
out the impact of the foot with the ground over the largest
possible area” (answer, page 5) and to further make the now
expanded forefoot area of the torsion system of Anderie as
modified by Dubner concave upwardly as shown in Kraeuter (Figs.
7-8) “to allow it to follow along the natural contour of the
user’s foot while giving a feeling of comfort on the user’s foot”
(answer, page 6).
In the brief and reply briefs, appellant contends that the
examiner has engaged in impermissible hindsight reconstruction by
using appellant’s claimed invention as a template to pick and
choose among isolated disclosures in the applied prior art
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007