NIKE, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 9, 20212020003878 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 14/746,597 06/22/2015 Dragan Jurkovic 236937/150057US02 1591 78342 7590 12/09/2021 Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP (NIKE, Inc.) 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 EXAMINER AN, SHAWN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/09/2021 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ipdocket@shb.com nike_docketing@cardinal-ip.com shbdocketing@shb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DRAGAN JURKOVIC, MING-FENG JEAN, CHIN-YI LIN, and CHUN-CHI LIN Appeal 2020-003878 Application 14/746,597 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. TECHNOLOGY The application relates to “locating critical control points . . . during a manufacturing process” of a shoe. Spec. Abstract. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Nike, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003878 Application 14/746,597 2 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 13, the only pending independent claim, is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 13. A method for precisely determining the position of variable parts, the method comprising: providing a jig extension, the jig extension comprising a connection to a part and a pattern defining an origin on the jig extension; identifying the pattern on the jig extension; scanning the part to yield scan data for at least a portion of the part; with the scan data, mapping at least a portion of the part to the origin on the jig extension; and using the map to perform location-sensitive operations involving at least a portion of the part. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art: Name Number Date Blanc US 4,741,062 May 3, 1988 Mach Shepherd US 2017/0249783 A1 Aug. 31, 2017 Topham US 2,336,049 Dec. 7, 1943 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 13–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Topham, Blanc, and Mach Shepherd. Final Act. 4. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding Mach Shepherd teaches or suggests “mapping at least a portion of the part to the origin on the jig extension,” as recited in claim 13? Appeal 2020-003878 Application 14/746,597 3 ANALYSIS Appellant argues “Mach Shepherd is silent as to ‘mapping at least a portion of the part to the origin on the jig extension,’” as recited in independent claim 13. Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, “nothing in Mach Shepherd teaches or suggests that any of the 3D models are mapped to an origin of a physical object (much less an origin on a jig extension).” Id. We agree with Appellant. Even if we treated the pattern for connecting the jig extension and the last in Topham or Blanc as defining an “origin” as claimed, the Examiner fails to explain how or why Mach Shepherd’s 3D models would be mapped to that origin. Cf. Mach Shepherd ¶ 66 (“the heel extreme point of the 3D shoe last model point cloud aligns with the heel extreme point of the 3D foot model point cloud and the ankle back extreme point of the 3D foot model point cloud aligns with the top back point of the 3D shoe last model point cloud”). For example, absent further explanation from the Examiner, it is not clear how or why Mach Shepherd’s “3D foot model” relates to a jig extension in Topham or Blanc. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13, and its dependent claims 14–20. OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of the rejection: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 13–20 103 Topham, Blanc, Mach Shepherd 13–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation