Ex Parte 7181866 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2012

95001320 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/001,320 03/03/2010 7181866 041463-5049 1486
13992 7590 12/28/2012
NDQ Special Reexam Group
1000 Louisiana Street, Fifty-Third Floor
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
WEHNER, CARY ELLEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

K-SWISS INC.
Requester, Respondent

v.

Patent of GLIDE'N LOCK GMBH
Patent Owner, Appellant
____________________

Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B21
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DANIEL S. SONG and
JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Issued February 27, 2007 to Braunschweiler (hereinafter "'866 patent").
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 (2002)
from a Final Rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134 and 315 (2002). In addition to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br."), the
Patent Owner relies on a Rebuttal Brief ("Reb. Br.") and declarations of
Mssrs. Bernhard, Corigliano and Sage in support of patentability. The
Requester relies on its Respondent Brief ("Resp. Br.") and the declaration of
Mr. Frederick in support of the Examiner's rejections. An oral hearing with
the representatives of the Patent Owner and the Requester was held before
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on November 14, 2012, a transcript of
which will be entered into the electronic record in due course.

THE INVENTION
The claims of the '866 patent is directed to an outsole for a shoe.
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 8 and 11 read as follows, claim
11 having been added during reexamination (App. Br.; Claims App'x.,
emphasis added):
1. An outsole for a shoe, the shoe disposed along a longitudinal
axis in a longitudinal direction parallel to a ground surface in
use, the outsole comprising:
a resilient member having an inner surface, an outer
surface and, with respect to a direction perpendicular to the
longitudinal direction, an upper portion and a lower portion, the
outer surface of the lower portion proximate the ground surface
in use,
the resilient member having first and second
configurations,
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

3
the first configuration having the inner surface of
the upper portion spaced from the inner surface of the
lower portion, the resilient member elastically absorbs
shoe loads oblique to the perpendicular direction by
relative motion in the longitudinal direction between the
upper portion and the lower portion in the first
configuration,
the second configuration having the inner surface
of the upper portion engaged with the inner surface of
the lower portion due to absorbed shoe loads, the
engagement substantially preventing relative motion in
the longitudinal direction between the upper portion and
the lower portion.

8. The outsole according to claim 1, wherein the engagement
comprises positive engagement.

11. The outsole according to claim 3, wherein the resilient member
comprises a profile like hollow element that contains a tubular part.

Independent claim 9 is similar to claim 1, but is directed to a device
for wearing on a foot including an outsole.

Findings of Fact Regarding the '866 Patent
1. A. Figures 1a) to 1c) of the '866 patent are reproduced below.

Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

4

Figure 1a) shows a side view of a shoe 1 according to a first
embodiment wherein the shoe is not subjected to a load, Figure 1b)
shows the shoe while being subjected to a transversely forward
load, and Figure 1c) shows the shoe while pushing off (col. 2, ll.
43-46; Figs. 1a)-1c)).
B. The '866 patent teaches that the objective of the disclosed
invention is to provide "an outsole with a simple design which
makes it possible to eliminate the above-described floating effect
and can also be realized sufficiently soft and resilient in the
tangential direction." (Col. 1, ll. 50-54).
C. The '866 patent states "[t]he outsole 1 is formed by a plurality
of profile-like hollow elements 3 that contain tubular parts 3.1 and
are fixed to the underside of an intermediate sole 4 of the running
shoe with webs 3.2 that are integrally formed thereon, e.g., by
means of bonding." (Col. 3, ll. 11-16).
D. According to the '866 patent, when the shoe 2 is loaded as it
contacts the ground, the tubular parts 3.1 are "completely
compressed after an initial elastic absorption of the load in the form
of a vertical and horizontal deformation. This leads to a frictional
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

5
engagement between their upper shell 3.1.1 and their lower shell
3.1.2 (see FIG. 3)." (Col. 3, ll. 29-37).
E. The '866 patent further states:
This frictional engagement generates such a high resistance to an
additional deformation of the tubular parts 3.1 that they practically
can only be additionally deformed by the remaining elasticity of the
material, i.e., to a negligible degree.
…
In addition, the runner is able to push off from the position
shown in FIG. 2 for the next step as illustrated in FIG. 1c) without
any loss in distance, namely because the previously described
frictional engagement between the tubular parts 3.1 practically
makes it impossible for these parts to horizontally deform to a
noteworthy degree in the direction of the load that occurs while
pushing off and is indicated by the arrow P2.
(Col. 3, ll. 37-53).

F. Figure 7 of the '866 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 7 shows a partially sectioned representation of an
outsole 9 according to another embodiment (col. 3, ll. 1-2; col. 5, ll.
13-18; Fig. 7).
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

6
G. The embodiment of Figure 7 is described as having "toothing"
between the upper layer 9.1 and the lower layer 9.2 (col. 5, ll. 17-
18; Fig. 7).
H. In discussing Figure 7 as an example, the '866 patent states
"[i]nstead of producing a frictional engagement as in the previously
described embodiments, it would be possible to alternatively or
additionally produce a positive engagement as shown[.]" (Col. 5, ll.
13-17).
I. The '866 patent further states "[f]rictional engagement means
and positive engagement means may be utilized individually or in
combination." (Col. 5, ll. 24-26).

THE REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims is:
Inohara US 4,523,393 Jun. 18, 1985
Takahashi Japan S49-96158 Dec. 9, 1972
(citations to the English translation of record)
Pagani GB 2001843 Feb. 14, 1979
Szentes WO 90/00021 Jan. 11, 1990
Okabe Japan H07-284403 Oct. 31, 1995
(citations to the English translation of record)

The Examiner rejected the various claims as follows:
1. Claims 1-5 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Okabe.
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

7
2. Claims 1, 2 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Szentes.
3. Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Pagani in view of Szentes.
4. Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Takahashi in view of Szentes.
5. Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Inohara in view of Szentes.
6. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite.

We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

ISSUES
The following issues have been raised in the present appeal.
1. Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Okabe discloses a
resilient member having a second configuration wherein the inner
surfaces of the upper and lower portions engage to substantially
prevent relative motion.
2. Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Szentes discloses a
resilient member having a second configuration wherein the inner
surfaces of the upper and lower portions engage to substantially
prevent relative motion.
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

8
3. Whether the Examiner erred in concluding that the claims
would have been obvious based on the combination of Pagani and
Szentes.
4. Whether the Examiner erred in concluding that the claims
would have been obvious based on the combination of Takahashi and
Szentes.
5. Whether the Examiner erred in concluding that the claims
would have been obvious based on the combination of Inohara and
Szentes.
6. Whether the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 11 is
indefinite.
7. Whether the Examiner erred in denying entry of an amendment.
8. Whether the Examiner erred in finding the declarations
submitted by the Patent Owner not commensurate with the scope of
the claims.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This
is the standard for claim interpretation in both original examination and re-
examination. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

9
Claims are in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, if
"the claims, read in light of the specification, reasonably apprise those
skilled in the art both of the utilization and scope of the invention, and if the
language is as precise as the subject matter permits." Hybritech, Inc. v.
Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also
In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971) ("[T]he definiteness of the
language employed must be analyzed-not in a vacuum, but always in light of
the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it
would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art.").

Anticipation
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Obviousness
"[P]atent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely
by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The
Court also noted that the "factfinder should be aware . . . of the distortion
caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex
post reasoning." Id. at 421. "A reference may be said to teach away when a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

10
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this regard, the entirety of the
reference must be considered. In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA
1965) ("It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and
choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given
position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of
what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.").

ANALYSIS AND ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
We address the various issues raised in the appeal infra, but in an
order that differs from that presented by the parties.

Entry of Amendment
The Patent Owner argues that the Examiner's denial of entry of its
claim amendments filed on November 30, 2010 was improper based on two
different grounds (App. Br. 25-29). However, the proper recourse for such
matters is by petition to the Director as such actions of the Examiner are not
within our purview. In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 232-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(The Board has no jurisdiction for matters within the discretion of the
examiner and not tantamount to a rejection of claims). We further observe
that the Patent Owner did, in fact, petition this matter (see Petition Under 37
C.F.R. §1.181 filed May 25, 2011), and received a decision (see Decision on
Patent Owner's Petition mailed June 14, 2011).

Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

11
Claim Construction of "Oblique"
Claim construction of the limitation "elastically absorbs shoe loads
oblique to the perpendicular direction" was argued by the Patent Owner in
its Appeal Brief stating that "oblique to the perpendicular direction" must be
construed to mean laterally oblique as shown in Fig. 2B instead of merely
forward component of the load which the Patent Owner corresponds to
"transversely forward load" (App. Br. 10-11). However, during the Oral
Hearing, the representative of the Patent Owner took a contrary position and
conceded that according to the specification of the '866 patent, the term
"oblique" should be broadly interpreted to encompass any angle offset from
the vertical in the longitudinal direction as well as the lateral direction.2

2 During the Oral Hearing, the Patent Owner's representative, Mr. Petri, in
response to request for clarification the position of the Patent Owner as to
the meaning of the limitation "oblique" stated:
Well, I -- I’m right now tracking I think what the third-party
requester had pointed out in their brief that, okay, let’s focus on the
oblique loads that are in the longitudinal direction. I think oblique,
if you read the specification, oblique is broad enough to cover
whether it’s a longitudinal -- if there’s an angle to the longitudinal
direction or lateral direction, or maybe even any other direction.
It’s just something off of perpendicular. So when you’re running,
when your foot strikes the ground if you’re going around a curve,
for instance, you will have both a longitudinal force vector, a
lateral force vector, and the vertical force vector. Those will
combine to have an oblique load. And so I think in the context of
this particular claim element, which is focusing on the relative
motion in a longitudinal direction, we can focus on the oblique
loads that are formed by the foot striking the ground in the
longitudinal direction. But this doesn’t exclude forces also being
elastically absorbed that are caused by the foot striking the ground
in a different direction.
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

12
Thus, the Patent Owner's various arguments presented in the Appeal Brief
directed to, and deriving from, the more limited construction of the term
"oblique" initially advocated, are moot.

Indefiniteness of Claim 11
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. The Examiner states that "it is unclear what a
'profile like hollow element' is" and that this term "makes no sense at all."
(RAN 21). According to the Examiner, the claim includes elements not
disclosed by its use of the phrase "profile like" so as to make the scope of
the claim unascertainable (RAN 21). The Examiner also argues that "it is
unclear how the hollow element 'contains' a tubular part" and that because
claim 11 depends from claim 3 which recites that "the resilient member
comprises a plurality of resilient members," it is unclear how the resilient
member can comprise a "profile like hollow element that contains a tubular
part." (RAN 21).
The Patent Owner disagrees and asserts that claim 11 is definite
because the language is explicitly supported by the specification and shown
in the original drawings Figures 2a) and 2b). (App. Br. 22-23; see also FFs
1A, 1C). The Patent Owner argues that "Figs. 2a)-2b) clearly show the
profile-like nature of the hollow elements 3 and their respective tubular parts
3.1" so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the

(Oral Hearing Transcript to be entered into the electronic record in due
course).
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

13
limitation to "correspond to the elongated elements fixed to the underside of
the sole." (App. Br. 23; see also Rebuttal Br. 8-11).
We agree with the Patent Owner that claim 11 is not indefinite. A
"profile" is a view or contour of an object3 and does not describe a structural
object so that its applicability to defining the illustrated structures shown is
not evident. The inclusion of the qualifier "like" does not help, and makes
understanding the claim even more difficult. However, in determining
definiteness, our inquiry is not just limited to the language of the claim.
Rather, the claims are "read in light of the specification" to determine
whether it reasonably apprises those skilled in the art as to its meaning and
scope. Hybritech, 802 F.2d at 1385; see also In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1235. In
this regard, we observe that the specification of the '866 patent also refers to
the "profile-like hollow element 3" as a "hollow element 3" in numerous
instances (see, e.g., col. 3, ll. 17-29). Thus, the specification of the '866
patent makes clear that the structural recitation "profile like hollow element"
is synonymous with "hollow element," the meaning of which is clear when
viewed in conjunction with the figures of the '866 patent.
Furthermore, in contrast to the Examiner's conclusion, our opinion is
that the limitation stating that the hollow element "contains a tubular part" is
not indefinite because the specification of the '866 patent also makes clear
that the hollow element 3 is comprised of two separate parts, namely, tubular
parts 3.1 and webs 3.2 (see FF 1C). In this context, it is clear that the
meaning of the term "contains" applicable to claim 11 is "2. to have as

3 Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1992) defines "profile" as
"3. an outlined view …; 4. an outline of an object …; 9. the look or general
contour of something ….".
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

14
contents or constituent parts; comprise; include." Random House Webster's
College Dictionary (1992). Hence, the use of the term "contains" does not
render claim 11 indefinite.
Finally, with respect to the dependency of claim 11, the recitation that
the resilient member "comprises a plurality of resilient members" in claim 3
does not render the claim 11 indefinite. Claim 3 is merely directed to the
number of resilient members while claim 11 is directed to the shape of the
resilient member. Because claim 11 is dependent on claim 3 and refers to
the "resilient member," the shape recited in claim 11 applies to the resilient
member of claim 3, and correspondingly, to the "plurality of resilient
members" recited therein.
Thus, in view of the above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
indefiniteness rejection of claim 11.

Rejection of Claims 1-5 and 8-11 as Anticipated by Okabe
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5 and 8-11 as anticipated by Okabe
(RAN 11, 22).

Findings of Fact Regarding Okabe
2. A. Okabe discloses a sole structure for a footwear (Title; Abstract).
Figures 1, 2 and 4 are reproduced below.
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

15

Figure 1 of Okabe shows a lateral cross sectional view of a
walking shoe having an outsole 2, midsole 3 and cavities 6a, 6b
formed there between (Pg. 4, col. 2). Figure 2 is a plan view of the
outsole of Figure 1 (Id.). Figure 4 is a cross sectional view of the
cavity 6a in which a load is applied to the shoe sole (Id.).
B. Okabe discloses that the sole includes "multiple circular
truncated cone-shaped rubber pins 8" that "protrude upwardly from
the bottom surface of the outsole 2." (¶ (0021)).
C. With respect to the rubber pins 8, Okabe further specifically
states:
In this case, since each rubber pin 8 has a circular truncated
cone shape, the elastic deformation of the rubber pins 8 does
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

16
not increase linearly in response to increases in load. In other
words, when the load is small, the top parts of the rubber pins
8 elastically deform and bear most of the load, and as the
load increases, the bases of the rubber pins gradually begin to
elastically deform, which makes it possible to maintain a
reasonable level of cushioning to accommodate a wide
spectrum of changes in load ranging from small to large
loads.
(¶ (0022)).

D. In describing the problem addressed by the disclosed invention,
Okabe states "[a]lthough establishing airtight cavities inside the
shoe sole yields advantages such as a soft air cushion effect and a
close fit between the sole and the unevenness of the ground,
inadequate support in the horizontal direction produces a feeling of
instability as if stepping on an air cushion." (¶ (0006)).
E. Okabe discloses that in Figure 4, "the bottom surface of the
midsole 3 descends due to an increase in load and touches the tops
of the rubber pins 8 … and the characteristic instability experienced
with the air cushion effect alone is improved as a result." (¶ (0022)).
F. Okabe also states "[t]he elasticity of each rubber pins 8 is
maintained even after the midsole 3 reaches its limit of elastic
deformation, and the midsole 3 has a thickness that exceeds the
depth of each of the recessed parts 7a and 7b of the outsole 2 in
each region, so the upward thrusting force of the rubber pins 8 is
transmitted to the bottom of the foot of the wearer after it is
dispersed by the midsole 3, which prevents the comfort from
diminishing." (¶ (0023)).
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

17
G. Okabe further states that "[i]n FIG. 2, it is shown that airtight
cavities 6a and 6b, whose planar shapes are roughly elliptical, are
established one cavity each in two locations …." (¶ (0024)).

Analysis
The Examiner finds that pins 8 of Okabe define the inner surface of
the lower portion of the outsole, and function to contact and engage the inner
surface of the upper portion of the outsole to prevent relative motion
therebetween (RAN 12, 25). According to the Examiner, Okabe discloses
an outsole wherein the pins provide both frictional engagement with the
inner surface of the upper portion as recited in dependent 2, as well as
positive engagement as recited in dependent claim 9 (RAN 12). The
Requester agrees and argues that Okabe discloses relative motion between
the pins 8 and the midsole 3 when they are spaced apart in a first
configuration but when some "sufficient load" is applied, the pins and the
midsole would be frictionally engage so as to "generate[] such a high
resistance to additional deformation that they practically can only be
additionally deformed by the remaining elasticity of the material, i.e., to a
negligible degree." (Resp. Br. 5).
The Patent Owner disagrees and argues that the claims require a
second configuration which encompasses the moment that the runner pushes
off and at this moment, the recited resilient members "substantially prevent[]
relative motion in the longitudinal direction between the upper portion and
the lower portion." (App. Br. 6, 7, 10). According to the Patent Owner, the
rubber pins 8 of Okabe which allow deformity upon loading, also inherently
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

18
allow for deformity in the recited second configuration when the runner
pushes off so that the outsole of Okabe does not "substantially prevent
relative motion in the longitudinal direction" as recited in the rejected claims
(App. Br. 10).
We disagree with the Patent Owner. We first observe that the claim
states "substantial[]" prevention of relative motion, not absolute prevention.
Indeed, the specification of the '866 patent makes clear that while the
frictional engagement generates high resistance to additional deformation, a
negligible degree of deformation can occur via "the remaining elasticity of
the material." (FF 1E). Correspondingly, in applying the broadest
reasonable construction in view of the specification, the "relative motion in
the longitudinal direction" that is recited in the claims corresponds to
relative motion of non-negligible magnitude such as that which causes the
"floating effect" problem described in the specification of the '866 patent,
but does not encompass small, relative motion of negligible magnitude that
are not "noteworthy." (FF 1A, 1E).
Okabe clearly establishes that the rubber pins 8 contact the midsole 3
as the sole is subjected to loads during use (FF 2A, 2C, 2E). While Okabe
does disclose that the rubber pins 8 deform and that the elasticity of each
rubber pin 8 is maintained (FF 2A-2C, 2F), it also specifically discloses the
load required for further deformation increases by virtue of its truncated
cone shape (FF 2C). In other words, the load bearing capacity progressively
increases as the rubber pin 8 is deformed. Furthermore, Okabe identifies a
similar problem as that of the claimed invention, namely, the feeling of
instability resulting from providing a cushioned effect, and teaches that this
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

19
instability is improved by the provision of the rubber pins 8 disclosed therein
(FF 2D, 2E).
Thus, in contrast to the assertions of the Patent Owner, the Okabe
reference fairly discloses that relative motion between the rubber pins 8 and
the midsole 3 is "substantially" prevented so as to not be "noteworthy" when
the disclosed sole is used (which would include push-off), and any
additional deformation by the rubber pins 8 is due to "the remaining
elasticity of the material, i.e., to a negligible degree" in the manner explained
in the specification of the '866 patent.
To the extent that the Patent Owner may be arguing that the '866
patent is the first in the art to recognize the desirability of such operation
wherein the upper portion and the lower portion of a resilient member
engage each other so as to substantially prevent relative motion, such
recognition is inadequate to establish novelty. See In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d
1019, 1023 (CCPA 1979) ("[The Appellants] are, in effect, arguing that a
structure suggested by the prior art, and, hence, potentially in the possession
of the public, is patentable to them because it also possesses an inherent, but
hitherto unknown, function which they claim to have discovered. This is not
the law. A patent on such a structure would remove from the public that
which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness
from, the prior art." (Emphasis in original)).
Correspondingly, the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent
claims 1 and 9 is sustained. In addition, with the exception of dependent
claims 8 and 11 which are addressed infra, the Patent Owner does not
present separate arguments with respect to the other claims rejected as
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

20
anticipated by Okabe. Thus, the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
dependent claims 2-5 and 10 are sustained as well.

Dependent Claim 8
The Patent Owner further argues with respect to dependent claim 8
that Okabe only discloses frictional engagement instead of the positive
engagement recited by claim 8 (App. Br. 11, 12; Rebuttal Br. 2-4).
According to the Examiner, "the contact between the pins 8 and the inner
surface of the upper portion inherently includes frictional engagement" as
recited in dependent claim 2, but also "engagement of the pins 8 by the inner
surface of the upper portion creates a positive engagement" as recited in
dependent claim 8 (RAN 12). Thus, the Examiner makes no distinction
between "frictional engagement" and "positive engagement."
We do not agree with the Examiner. The specification of the '866
patent clearly distinguishes "frictional engagement" from "positive
engagement," describing them as alternatives to each other which can also
be provided in combination (FF 1H, 1I). In this regard, the example
illustrated and discussed as having "positive engagement" is the embodiment
shown in Figure 7 of the '866 which includes having preformed toothing on
the upper layer 9.1 that engages the corresponding preformed toothing the
lower layer 2 (FF 1F, 1G). As such, the broadest reasonable construction of
"positive engagement" in view of the specification of the '866 patent is
engagement achieved through the interaction of structural features of the
engaged components. Such engagement is not disclosed in Okabe.
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

21
The Requester's argument that "[t]his touching is considered a
'positive engagement' due to the deformation that occurs when the loads are
increased" (Resp. Br. 7) is also not persuasive. While the sole 3 and the
rubber pins 8 may deform upon application of a load, the sole 3 is planar in
its construction and does not include any structural features that interact with
the rubber pins 8 in a manner that can reasonably be characterized as
"positive engagement," as that term is used in the context of the '866 patent.
Any indention formed on the sole 3 is merely the elastic compression thereof
and while the frictional engagement between the sole 3 and the rubber pins 8
can be characterized as having been increased by such elastic compression,
such engagement cannot be reasonably be characterized as positive
engagement between the rubber pins 8 and the sole in view of the
specification of the '866 patent.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of dependent claim 8 based on Okabe.

Dependent Claim 11
The Patent Owner argues that the rejection of claim 11 as anticipated
by Okabe is erroneous because Okabe fails to disclose the recited "resilient
member compris[ing] a profile like hollow element that contains a tubular
part." (Rebuttal Br. 11). The Examiner asserts that "Fig. 1 [of Okabe] shows
that each cavity has a hollow cross section and is formed as a tube." (RAN
22).
We disagree with the Examiner. It is not apparent to us how Okabe
discloses a cavity having "formed as a tube." Whereas the Examiner refers
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

22
to Figure 1 of Okabe as disclosing the claim limitation, we observe that
Figure 1 is merely a cross-sectional view (FF 2A) and the general shape of
the cavity is shown in Figure 2 which must be considered in conjunction
with Figure 1 to understand the shape of the cavity. Figure 2 of Okabe and
the discussion in Okabe regarding the same makes clear that the cavities
have a planar shape as shown in Figure 2 (FF 2A, 2G), and not "as a tube" as
asserted by the Examiner. Thus, the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
dependent claim 11 based on Okabe is also reversed.

Rejection of claims 1, 2 and 8-10 as Anticipated by Szentes
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Szentes (RAN 12).

Findings of Fact Regarding Szentes
3. A. Szentes discloses a sole of a footwear (Abst.). Figure 2 of
Szentes is reproduced below.

Figure 2 of Szentes is a cross-sectional view of one
embodiment of sole 1 having a liquid filled cavity 4 between an
upper layer 2 with notches 7, and a lower layer 3 with notches 7 and
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

23
ribs 8 (pg. 10, ll. 18-35; Fig. 2). Szentes discloses that when the
"footwear is loaded by the weight of the user, the upper part 2
moves toward the lower layer 3" and the toe and heel portions of
the upper part "bears up against the lower layer 3." (Pg. 9, ll. 30-
35).
B. As to the ribs and notches, Szentes states "[i]n accordance with
the invention, a further embodiment of the footwear can be
characterized in that the ribs formed on one of the soles of the
footwear are realized so as to fit into the notches." (Pg. 7, ll. 32-35).
C. In discussing a prior art sole having a hollow cavity filled with
a liquid, Szentes states "[t]he drawback of said solution lies in that
walking becomes instable." (Pg. 3, ll. 30-31).
D. With respect to prior art soles, Szentes also states:
Another deficiency lies in, in so far as surfacial parts of the two
layers facing each other are sliding easily on one another on effect
of sliding force components, as a consequence, the person using the
footwear has the sense of uncertainty. Connection between the two
layers having been fixed to each other gets torn after a short use, as
the two layers lying on each other, sliding frequently and relatively
to a large extent, are subjected to considerable load, as a
consequence glued material parts get torn apart.
(Pg. 5, ll. 19-28).
E. Szentes also states with respect to Figure 2, "[i]f along the
periphery of the upper layer 2 and the lower layer 3 reinforcement,
connection of the sole 1 of the footwear tore, cracked, slip may
occur." (Pg. 10, ll. 29-32).
F. With regard to Figure 2, Szentes states "[o]ne of the tasks lies in
to prevent sliding of the two layers on one another, when the upper
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

24
layer 2 is lying onto the lower layer 3 in the loaded state, under the
effect of the force component transferred by the foot from the upper
layer 2, being parallel with the longitudinal direction or cross-
direction of the shoe." (Pg. 10, ll. 23-29).
G. Szentes further states that one aim of the invention is that "the
person wearing the shoe should always feel the stable support for
the foot." (Pg. 6, ll. 14-19).
H. In its discussion of various prior art, Szentes states that a sole
disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 4,445,284 which includes elongated
cells is deficient in that "wearing results in an unsure and wobbling
walk." (Pg. 3, l. 33-pg. 4, l. 3).

Analysis
The Examiner finds that the "inner surfaces of the upper and lower
portions [of Szentes] are engaged to prevent relative motion in the
longitudinal direction between the portions." (RAN 13). In addition, the
Examiner finds that the "engagement of the inner surfaces creates a positive
engagement" as recited in dependent claim 8 (RAN 13).
The Patent Owner argues that Szentes does not teach a first
configuration of absorbing loads by relative motion in the longitudinal
direction and that Szentes "teaches away from allowing any slippage in the
longitudinal direction" by its provision of ribs and notches (App. Br. 12, 13).
The Patent Owner further argues that the embodiment of Figure 3 of Szentes
shows that no relative movement between the upper and lower layers is
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

25
contemplated because of the profile of the footbed suggests alignment of the
layers (App. Br. 14).
We are not persuaded by the Patent Owner's arguments. The Patent
Owner's argument that Szentes does not teach the first configuration of
absorbing loads by relative motion is unpersuasive because it is this very
relative motion that the provided notches and ribs of Szentes are designed to
address when the shoe is in its loaded state (FF 3A-3C, 3F, 3G). If there is
no relative motion between the upper and lower layers, there would be no
reason to provide such notches and ribs. In this regard, the Patent Owner
ignores the fact that the two layers of Szentes do not contact each other until
the wearer's weight is applied to the sole (FF 3A, 3F).
While Szentes teaches the general undesirability of relative movement
between the upper layer and the lower layer because such movement can
result in the glued material parts tearing, such tearing is described in the
context of when layers of the sole "are subjected to considerable load," that
is, when the shoe is in the loaded state (FF 3D). Szentes provides the
notches and ribs for prevention of relative motion between the layers when
the sole is bearing weight of the wearer, not when it is in an unloaded state.
The Patent Owner's argument that the embodiment of Figure 3 of
Szentes shows that no relative movement between the upper and lower
layers is contemplated (App. Br. 14) ignores the fact that Figure 3 is merely
one embodiment and other embodiments, including that shown in Figure 2,
do not include such a profile for the footbed (see Szentes, Figs. 1, 2, 4). We
also observe that in the embodiment of Figure 3, a clamping band (not
enumerated) surrounds the periphery of the sole which may impact the
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

26
ability of the layers to move relative to each other (see, e.g., Szentes, pg. 8, l.
3-pg. 9, l. 2; Fig. 3). Such clamping band is not present in Figure 2.
In view of the above, the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9 is sustained. In addition, with the exception of
dependent claim 8 which is addressed below, the Patent Owner does not
present separate arguments with respect to the other claims rejected based on
Szentes. Thus, the Examiner's anticipation rejection of dependent claims 2-5
and 10 over Szentes are sustained as well.

Claim 8
The Patent Owner separately argues that Szentes merely discloses
frictional engagement and does not disclose positive engagement as recited
by dependent claim 8 because the notches are filled with fluid, the ribs differ
in size compared to the notches, and because the notches are only provided
under the toes and the arch portions of the sole (App. Br. 14-15).
None of these arguments are persuasive. Fluid is displaceable. The
fact that ribs and notches differ in size does not preclude these structural
features from interacting to positively engage each other. Whereas the
recitation of a positive engagement requires interaction between structural
features as discussed supra, nothing in the claims requires a specific
structure (e.g., same sized ribs and notches). Furthermore, Szentes itself
characterizes the ribs as fitting into the notches (FF 3B). Moreover, the
disclosure of notches only under the toes and arch does not preclude these
structures from providing positive engagement between the upper and lower
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

27
layers. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim
8 based on Szentes.

Rejection of Claims 1-11 as Obvious Over Pagani in View of Szentes
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 as obvious over the combination
of Pagani and Szentes (RAN 14, 22).

Findings of Fact Regarding Pagani
4. A. Pagani discloses a sole tread of a footwear (Abst.). Figure 2 of
Pagani is reproduced below.

Figure 2 of Pagani reproduced above is a longitudinal cross
sectional view of a sole tread 10 having a plurality of through-
channels 11 (pg. 1, ll. 47-60; Fig. 2).
B. Pagani teaches that the sole tread "is made from a preferably
compressibly resilient polymeric material such as rubber or []
synthetic plastics." (Pg. 1, ll. 8-15).
C. Pagani states that the "closed channels are advantageously holes
extending throughout the lengths of the ridges, e.g. from one edge
of the sole to the other and provide an array of air-chambers which
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

28
improve the softness of the sole and its adherence to the ground."
(pg. 1, ll. 47-60).
D. Pagani states "[t]he channels 11 make the sole tread especially
resiliently yieldable, so that the footwear article to which it is
applied is very comfortable in use and the triangular embossments
12 tend to yield under the wearer's weight so as to bring their
sloping walls in frictional contact with the ground, thus further
improving the already good adherence of the sole to the ground."
(Pg. 1, ll. 67-75).

5. The Declaration of Mr. Frederick dated May 25, 2010 states:
Pagani does not explicitly disclose that the inner surface of
the upper portion of the channels 11 are engaged with the inner
surface of the lower portion of the channels 11 due to absorbed
shoe loads in the second configuration. In my opinion, a shoe
could undergo very large loads depending on the weight of the
user and the type of activity. Since Pagani discloses that the
"[t]he channels 11 make the sole tread especially resiliently
yieldable" and "the triangular embossments 12 tend to yield
under the wearer's weight so as to bring their sloping walls 14 in
frictional contact with the ground," it necessarily follows that the
structure of the tread 10 is capable of undergoing a complete
collapse of at least one of the channels 11 of the tread 10 such
that an inner surface of the upper portion of a given channel 11
is engaged with the inner surface of the lower portion of the
given channel due to absorbed shoe loads when the absorbed
shoe loads are sufficiently large.
(¶ 83).

Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

29
Analysis
The Examiner finds that the resilient members (channels 11) of Pagani
have a first configuration where the upper and lower portions of the channels
11 are spaced from each other, and "inherently has a second configuration
when a load is absorbed by the resilient member where the inner surfaces of
the upper and lower portions move toward one another." (RAN 14). The
Examiner also finds that Szentes teaches that such channels "results in an
unsure and wobbling walk," citing the prior art discussion in Szentes
regarding U.S. Patent No. 4,445,284, which discloses a sole with elongated
cells, and finds that Szentes solves the problem by preventing sliding
through engagement between the upper and lower portions (RAN 14-15, 29;
FF 3H). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
"modify the outsole of Pagani so that the inner surfaces of the channels
contact each other upon application of a load oblique to the perpendicular
direction, as taught by Szentes, in order to provide a shoe that feels stable
when walking or running." (Ans. 15).
The Requester agrees with the Examiner and argues that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to apply the solution
disclosed in Szentes to the outsoles of Pagani" and one of ordinary skill in
the art would have known how to modify a resilient member in the form of
an open channel structure based on a resilient member in the form of a single
enclosed space in the sole, referring to the Declaration of Mr. Frederick in
support (Resp. Br. 9; see also Decl. of Mr. Frederick ¶¶ 75-91).
The Patent Owner argues, inter alia, that Pagani fails to disclose the
second configuration because the sole is "especially resiliently yieldable,"
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

30
which would result in relative motion during push off and that Pagani relies
on this relative motion for adherence and comfort, whereas Szentes teaches
away from any relative motion (App. Br. 15-16). The Patent Owner further
argues that because Pagani describes multiple through-channels 11 whereas
Szentes relies on one fluid-filled cavity 4, "it is unclear precisely how and
why - without the benefit of hindsight reasoning - one of ordinary skill in the
art would combine these references to arrive at the Patent Owner's claims."
(App. Br. 16).
We agree with the Patent Owner's contention that impermissible
hindsight is being applied by the Examiner. In our view, a fair reading of
Szentes suggests not using a plurality of small channels such as that
disclosed in Pagani, because Szentes disparages such a configuration (FF
3H). In this regard, rather than modifying the plurality of small channels in
the sole of the prior art, Szentes suggests using a single, large cavity in all of
the different embodiments disclosed.
In addition, it is also evident that in order for the invention of Szentes
to work, there must be contact between the upper and lower layers. While
we agree with the Examiner that the inner surfaces of the upper and lower
portions of Pagani will move toward one another when a load is absorbed,
Pagani is silent as to any contact between the inner surfaces of the upper and
lower portions, nor does Pagani discuss the extent of this movement. This
silence is factually problematic, especially considering the small size and
distribution of the channels along the sole (FF 4A, 4C). It is not apparent to
us that channels of Pagani would necessarily be compressed to the extent
wherein the upper and lower portions are "engaged" as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

31
Whereas the Requester relies on the Declaration of Mr. Frederick (FF
5), the particular statement relied upon is unpersuasive because it is
conclusory and unsubstantiated by persuasive objective evidence. In
particular, we are not persuaded that the disclosure in Pagani that the
channels make the sole tread especially resiliently yieldable and that the
triangular embossments yield establishes that "the structure of the tread 10 is
capable of undergoing a complete collapse of at least one of the channels 11
of the thread" as asserted by the declarant (id.). This opinion appears to be
based on application of shoe loads that are "sufficiently large." (FF 4).
However, the mere fact that the claims are silent as to the amount of the
applied load does not mean that there is no implied limitation as to the
amount of load considering the subject matter of the claims and the prior art
are soles of shoes. Even the most rigid structures can "completely collapse"
if the loads are "sufficiently large."
Furthermore, it is not apparent why one of ordinary skill would apply
the teachings of notches and ribs as applied to a large, singular cavity as
taught in Szentes, to small channels shown in Pagani which is very different
from the cavity disclosed in Szentes (compare FF 3A with FF 4A). Hence,
we find merit in the Patent Owner's argument that the Examiner appears to
be engaging in hindsight reasoning to arrive at the Patent Owner's claims.
Thus, in view of the above considerations, whereas the Examiner has
articulated a reason for modifying the sole of Pagani, and in view of the
preponderance of the evidence before us, our impression is that the reason is
based in impermissible hindsight. Correspondingly, the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1-11 as obvious over the combination of Pagani and Szentes is not
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

32
sustained. The additional arguments such as those directed to dependent
claim 8 are moot.

Rejection of Claims 1-11 as Obvious Over Takahashi in View of
Szentes
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Szentes (RAN 17, 23).

Findings of Fact Regarding Takahashi
6. Takahashi discloses a shoe sole (pg. 1, ¶ 1). Figure 1 of Takahashi
is reproduced below.

Figure 1 of Takahashi reproduced above shows a side view of
an embodiment of shoe sole 1 including a plurality of ridge bodies
7 containing passage holes 6 (pg. 1, ¶ 3; pg. 2, ¶ 2; Fig. 1).

Analysis
The Examiner's rejection of the claims based on the combination of
Takahashi and Szentes, and the arguments proffered by the Patent Owner
and the Requester are substantively similar to the obviousness rejection
based on the combination of Pagani and Szentes discussed supra (see RAN
17-19, 23; App. Br. 17-19; Resp. Br. 9-10; Decl. of Mr. Frederick, ¶¶ 92-
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

33
107). The disclosure of Takahashi is substantively similar to that of Pagani
(compare FF 4A with FF 6).
Therefore, for substantively the same reasons already discussed with
respect to the obviousness rejection based on the combination of Pagani and
Szentes, we likewise conclude that the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1-11 based on the combination of Takahashi and Szentes is based on
impermissible hindsight, and is not sustained.

Rejection of Claims 1-11 as Obvious Over Inohara in View of Szentes
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Inohara in view of Szentes (RAN 19, 23).

Findings of Fact Regarding Inohara
7. Inohara discloses a shoe sole (Abstract). Figure 13 of Inohara is
reproduced below.

Figure 13 of Inohara reproduced above shows a side view of an
embodiment of a shoe having an interlayer body 11 with a plurality
of apertures 12 (col. 2, ll. 24-26; col. 5, ll. 16-24; Fig. 13).

Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

34
Analysis
The Examiner's rejection of the claims based on the combination of
Inohara and Szentes, and the arguments proffered by the Patent Owner and
the Requester are also substantively similar to the obviousness rejection
based on the combination of Pagani and Szentes discussed supra (see RAN
19-21, 23; App. Br. 17-19; Resp. Br. 10; Decl. of Mr. Frederick, ¶¶ 108-
121). The disclosure of Inohara is substantively similar to that of Pagani
(compare FF 4A with FF 7).
Therefore, for substantively the same reasons already discussed with
respect to the obviousness rejection based on the combination of Pagani and
Szentes, we likewise conclude that the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1-11 based on the combination of Inohara and Szentes is based on
impermissible hindsight, and is not sustained.

Declarations
The Patent Owner argues that the declarations of Mssrs. Bernhard,
Corigliano and Sage were not given proper weight in favor of non-
obviousness of the claimed invention (App. Br. 29; Rebuttal Br. 5-8). The
Examiner states that the declarations relied upon by the Patent Owner are
insufficient to overcome the obviousness rejections because "there is no
showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in
scope with the claims (RAN 24). The Requester agrees (Resp. Br. 11-13).
This issue is moot because the obviousness rejections are not
sustained as discussed supra. As to the Examiner's rejections of the various
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) which have been sustained, the declarations
Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

35
which attest to the superior results attained by certain commercially
implemented shoes are not pertinent. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543
(CCPA 1973).

ORDERS
1. A. Rejection of claims 1-5, 9 and 10 as anticipated by Okabe is
AFFIRMED.
B. Rejection of claims 8 and 11 as anticipated by Okabe is
REVERSED.
2. Rejection of claims 1, 2 and 8-10 as anticipated by Szentes is
AFFIRMED.
3. Rejection of claims 1-11 as obvious over Pagani in view of Szentes
is REVERSED.
4. Rejection of claims 1-11 as obvious over Takahashi in view of
Szentes is REVERSED.
5. Rejection of claims 1-11 as obvious over Inohara in view of Szentes
is REVERSED.
6. Rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite is REVERSED.

Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.956 and 41.77(g).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2012-009494
Reexamination Control 95/001,320
Patent US 7,181,866 B2

36

cu

Patent Owner:
NDQ Special Reexam Group
1000 Louisiana Street, 53rd Floor
Houston, TX 77002

Third Party Requester:
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.
1425 K Street, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005