Appeal No. 2005-2544
Application No. 09/328,749
references and then piece those disparate disclosures together in
an effort to render appellant’s claimed invention obvious. We
agree.
More particularly, we find no reasonable basis in the
collective teachings of the applied prior art to Anderie and
Dubner for modifying the forefoot anchoring portion (118) of
Anderie’s stiffening member (109) to span substantially the
entire forefoot area of the shoe sole from a midtarsal area to a
toe area and from a lateral side to a medial side, or the
rearfoot anchoring portion (119) of the stiffening member (109)
to span substantially the entire rearfoot area of the shoe sole
from a midtarsal area to a heel area and from the lateral side to
the medial side, as is required in claims 1 and 21 on appeal.
Nothing in Dubner’s conforming supporting innersole device is
suggestive of any such modification in the anchoring portions of
the embedded stiffening member in Anderie. Moreover, absent the
examiner’s proposed expansion of the size of the forefoot
anchoring portion (118) of Anderie’s stiffening member (109), we
see no basis in the combined teachings of Anderie, Dubner and
Kraeuter for attempting to make the forefoot anchoring portion
(118) of Anderie’s embedded stiffening member with “a generally
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007