14025517 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2020)

William Marvin et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 4, 2020

14025517 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2020)

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. 14/025,517 09/12/2013 William Marvin 2073.2170001 7279 63504 7590 08/04/2020 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER MOHANDESI, JILA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3732 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/04/2020 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): e-office@sternekessler.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM MARVIN, PAUL LITCHFIELD, BRIAN CHRISTENSEN, and PAUL DAVIS Appeal 2019-002478 Application 14/025,517 Technology Center 3700 Before DANIEL S. SONG, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–41, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1–20 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Reebok International, Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-002478 Application 14/025,517 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “shoe uppers having smooth interior and/or exterior upper surfaces and related methods to produce shoe uppers.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21. An upper for an article of footwear, the upper comprising: a first contiguous pre-shaped, molded three-dimensional panel extending from a rearmost end of the upper in a heel region to a midfoot region of the upper; a second contiguous pre-shaped, molded three- dimensional panel aligned with the first contiguous panel and extending from a foremost end of the upper in a forefoot region to the midfoot region of the upper, wherein the first panel and the second panel define a curved seam disposed in the midfoot region at a juncture therebetween; and a thermoplastic tape adhered to the first panel and the second panel along the seam, wherein the thermoplastic tape covers the seam. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sokolowski et al. (“Sokolowski”) US 7,637,032 B2 Dec. 29, 2009 Dobrovnik et al. (“Dobrovnik”) DE 196 30 603 A1 Feb. 5, 1998 REJECTION Claims 21–41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dobrovnik and Sokolowski. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2019-002478 Application 14/025,517 3 OPINION Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in relying on Dobrovnik’s drawings as allegedly showing a curved seam because Dobrovnik’s drawing is not explicitly made to scale. App. Br. 7. Although it is generally true that drawings cannot be relied upon for precise measurements, here the Examiner does not rely on Dobrovnik for such precision. The claim requires only a curved seam and Dobrovnik’s drawing is sufficient to show that the seam shown therein is curved. See Dobrovnik, drawing (showing curvature along edge regions 32a, 32b, 33a, 33b). Appellant also argues that portions of Dobrovnik teach “that its seams or ‘connnecting lines represent weak points’ and that ‘the invention permits a minimization of the seam’ by locating the seams in an area where ‘the total length of the connecting lines is minimal.’” App. Br. 10 (citing Dobrovnik translation, p. 2, ¶ 8). Appellant’s assertion is that Dobrovnik’s minimization of seam length would lead one of skill in the art to understand “that a curved seam will be longer than a straight seam” and so Dobrovnik’s seams must be straight. Dobrovnik itself does not teach that seams should be straight, merely that seams should be as short as possible. Given the shape of shoes, we do not understand Dobrovnik as teaching that all seams in a shoe should be straight in order to minimize seam length. Further, the seam in Dobrovnik’s Figure between 32a and 32b is clearly curved. Lastly, Appellant argues that Dobrovnik does not actually teach a seam because Dobrovnik teaches overlapping of the shoe portions so as to allow for a single pattern to be used in making multiple sizes of shoes. Regardless of the overlapping, the portions being mated together are still curved and would require some kind of curved seam. One of skill in the art Appeal 2019-002478 Application 14/025,517 4 would not utilize a straight seam to connect two curved edge portions as shown in Dobrovnik. Furthermore, although overlapping might allow for a single pattern to be utilized for smaller shoes, such overlap does not mean that a seam is not required, and when used for the largest size, overlapping would be minimal if done at all. Lastly, although not necessary to support the rejection, we note that Sokolowski specifically teaches that sewing machines have limitations whereas “[a]rticles including adhesive element based seams, on the other hand, may have any desired shapes, including irregular, non-linear shapes, sharp angles, small-radius curves, scalloped edges, pinked edges, or other complex features.” Sokolowski col. 17, ll. 20–24. Given this teaching, it is clear that using adhesive tape was well-known when dealing with non- straight seams. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is sustained. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21–41 103 Dobrovnik, Sokolowski 21–41 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-002478 Application 14/025,517 5 AFFIRMED