Appeal No. 2005-2544
Application No. 09/328,749
We have additionally reviewed the patents to Nagano and
Eisenbach relied upon by the examiner in the rejections of
dependent claims 7, 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but find
nothing therein that makes up for the deficiencies in the
combined teachings of the applied patents to Anderie, Dubner and
Kraeuter as noted above. Accordingly, we also refuse to sustain
the examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 4, 7 through 21 and 23 through 26 of
the present application is reversed.
However, pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection:
Claims 1, 9, 15, 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Anderie. More particularly, we
point to the embodiment seen in Figures 4-10 of Anderie and find
that the intermediate sole member (101) constitutes a “torsion
system” like that defined in appellant’s claims 1, 9, 15, 20 and
26 on appeal, while the wearing or outsole (102) provides
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007