13774957 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2018)

Ex Parte Catlett

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 7, 2018

13774957 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/774,957 02/22/2013 67559 7590 08/08/2018 Parsons Behle & Latimer Attn: Docketing 800 W. Main Street, Suite 1300 Boise, ID 83702 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kimberly Ann Catlett 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 23325.00lUSOl 1067 EXAMINER HERACKLIS, JAMES OMER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3765 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/08/2018 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) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KIMBERLY ANN CATLETT Appeal2017-010685 Application 13/774,957 Technology Center 3700 Before DANIEL S. SONG, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and ANTHONY KNIGHT, Administrative Patent Judges. ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE- Kimberly Ann Catlett ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (dated Oct. 5, 2016, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 The inventor, Kimberly Ann Catlett, is identified as the real party in interest in Appellant's Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 6, 2017, hereinafter "Appeal Br."). Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-010685 Application 13/774,957 INVENTION Appellant's invention "relate[s] to a footwear upper connection device system that allows a user to easily and securely change and attach one or more vamps or heel straps onto the midsole of a shoe." Spec. para. 2. Claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A shoe system comprising: a shoe comprising a midsole portion, said midsole portion comprising a top surface below an insole, a bottom surface above an outsole, and a sidewall surface in between said top surface and said bottom surface and extending around said shoe substantially perpendicularly to the top surface and the bottom surface and at least one elongated channel defined in and extending along at least a portion of said sidewall surface, said elongated channel comprising an opening into a channel chamber, said elongated channel comprising a roof portion and a base portion and wherein said roof portion and base portion selectively engage a clip between them in a locking fashion; said clip comprises a locking portion for engaging the roof portion of said elongated channel in order to selectively lock within said elongated channel, said clip connecting with a detachable upper via a connection portion; and said detachable upper comprises an attachment portion for connecting with said connection portion via a connector. 2 Appeal2017-010685 Application 13/774,957 REJECTI0NS 2 I. The Examiner rejects claims 1-9, 13, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gardiner (US 2,761,224, issued Sept. 4, 1956). II. The Examiner rejects claims 10-12, 14--16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gardiner. ANALYSIS Rejection I Each of independent claims 1, 13, and 20 requires, inter alia, a shoe including a midsole with a sidewall surface having an elongated channel with a roof portion and a base portion that "engage" a clip "between them in a locking fashion." Appeal Br. 21, 23, 25 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Gardiner's shoe 10 includes, inter alia, an elongated channel 19 having a roof portion and a base portion that engage clip 23 in a locking fashion, as shown in the Examiner's annotated Figure 3 of Gardiner. 3 See Final Act. 6-8. According to the Examiner, "the clip would be securely fastened within the channel and would not be removed unless excessive force was applied." Ans. 5. The Examiner's annotated Figure 3 of Gardiner is shown below: 2 The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite, has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Examiner's Answer 2 (entered June 14, 2017, hereinafter "Ans."). 3 The Examiner refers to Gardiner's Figure 3 as "Figure 3B." See Final Act. 8. 3 Appeal2017-010685 Application 13/774,957 l'Xt:~md\ng po.ttio~~ ;.$4 /7 '{l'~Jj o~,(~dmng po.ct,~m ~:c.