NIKE, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 9, 2021

2020003878 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2021)

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