Appeal 2007-0235
Application 09/945,006
The Appellants argue that “Schroer, Jr. et al has no disclosure of the
position of a peripheral contour relative [to] the longitudinal arch or
transverse arch or any of the foot bones” (Br. 4). Schroer’s figures 1A and
1B show that the arch support extends along the entire arch’s length and,
therefore, conforms to the arch in the longitudinal direction. Schroer’s
figure 1 shows that the arch support extends substantially across the arch’s
transverse direction, and a comparison of Schroer’s figures 5A (no foot) and
5B (with foot (load 26)) shows that the arch support slopes downward across
the full width of the arch under no load and, under load, slopes downward
across the arch’s transverse direction such that it conforms to the arch across
the full transverse direction of the arch. Because the arch support conforms
to the arch along its transverse direction, it necessarily conforms to the arch
region bones recited in the Appellants’ claims. We therefore are not
convinced by the Appellants’ arguments (Br. 4-8; Reply Br. 2-4) regarding
independent claim 1 or the bones recited in independent claims 9 and 45 and
the dependent claims.
The Appellants argue that Schroer’s insole is not sized for a human
foot of a predetermined size and that the arch support does not form part of a
footbed that generally conforms to the plantar surface of a human foot (Br.
6-7). That argument is not persuasive because Schroer’s insole is designed
to fit the general shape of a foot’s plantar surface (col. 4, ll. 18-19). The
predetermined human foot size is the foot size corresponding to the size of
the insole as manufactured. Because both the Appellants’ footbed (claim 5)
and Schroer’s insole (col. 4, ll. 18-19) conform to the foot’s plantar surface,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013