US 11041262

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 11041262:

US Patent 11041262 Summary

• Title: Shoe having knit wingtip upper
• Assignee: Cole Haan LLC
• Inventors: Jack Boys, Ann Bono, Aubert Shepherd, Mattias Verfl
• Filing Date: 2019-09-20 (for application US16/577,697)
• Issue Date: 2021-06-22
• Abstract: "A shoe includes a knit upper and a sole secured to the knit upper. The knit upper has a first area of a jersey stitch knit and a second area of a pointelle stitch knit, a boundary line between the first and second areas, and a line of broguing adjacent the boundary line."

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method of Manufacturing): This claim describes a method for making a shoe. It involves knitting a single, one-piece upper for a shoe using a knitting machine. This knitted upper includes various distinct regions (heel, lateral/medial midfoot, metatarsal, ball, and toe regions). A key feature is that the toe, ball, and metatarsal regions are all seamlessly knitted together. The knitted upper also has two different knit patterns: a "jersey stitch knit" in at least the toe region (first area) and a "pointelle stitch knit" in at least the lateral and medial metatarsal regions (second area). These two knit areas meet at a boundary line, and a line of "broguing" (decorative holes) is knitted directly adjacent to this boundary line. Finally, the sole is attached to this knitted upper.
• Independent Claim 7 (Shoe): This claim describes the shoe itself. The shoe comprises a knitted upper and a sole attached to it. The knitted upper is a single, one-piece construction created on a knitting machine. It includes lateral/medial midfoot, metatarsal, ball, and toe regions. The toe, ball, and metatarsal regions are seamlessly knitted. Similar to the method claim, the shoe's upper features a "first area" with a jersey stitch knit (located at least in the toe region) and a "second area" with a pointelle stitch knit (located at least in the lateral and medial metatarsal regions). These two areas have a coincident and coextensive boundary line, and a line of broguing is adjacent to this boundary line. The first and second areas are formed during the knitting process. The knitted element also includes a knitted upper heel region.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, the provided information indicates that there is a PTAB case (IPR2025-01394) filed, but it has not been instituted. There are also US cases filed in the New Jersey District Court (2:25-cv-00176) and Illinois Northern District Court (1:25-cv-01327) related to this patent. However, there is no authoritative information explicitly detailing any appeals to the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) specifically within the 2026 docket year. The existing litigation mentions District Court cases, which could potentially lead to CAFC appeals, but no such appeals are currently listed as filed or active for 2026 for this patent.

Known litigation involving US patent 11041262 includes the following cases:

1. PTAB Case: IPR2025-01394

   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner: TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP, INC., DP DREAM PAI.
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner: Cole Haan LLC (current assignee of US11041262).
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01394.
   • Filing Date: 2025-09-30.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

2. US District Court Case: New Jersey District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Cole Haan LLC.
   • Defendant(s): Top Glory Trading Group Inc. and DP Dream Pairs, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court.
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00176.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text or search results for the initial complaint, but documents were filed as of April 7, 2025.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation (ongoing).

3. US District Court Case: Illinois Northern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text or search results. (Likely Cole Haan LLC, based on typical patent litigation patterns).
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text or search results. (Likely an alleged infringer).
   • Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court.
   • Case Number: 1:25-cv-01327.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text or search results.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation (ongoing).

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 11041262. This proceeding, IPR2025-01394, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the patent claims were not reviewed on the merits and remain untested by the PTAB. This outcome generally strengthens the patent owner's position, as a challenge was mounted and failed at the institution stage.

IPR2025-01394 — TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v. Cole Haan LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-03
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute the review, ending the proceeding before a merits determination on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Lead APJ Michael P. Tierney, APJ Stephen P. Smith, and APJ Brian P. Murphy.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,041,262 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art, including US Patent No. 6,986,269 B2 (Nike, Inc.), US Patent No. 7,347,011 B2 (Nike, Inc.), and US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0118018 A1 (Dua).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-10. The PTAB exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), citing factors from Fintiv and Sand Revolution. Specifically, the Board found that a co-pending district court litigation involving the same parties and substantially overlapping issues weighed heavily against institution, as the district court trial was scheduled to occur before any final written decision in the IPR.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding terminated due to the discretionary denial of institution. There was no settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-01394 means that all claims (1-13) of US11041262 remain in force and have not been challenged on the merits at the PTAB. A defendant facing assertion of this patent will find it harder to pursue an IPR with the same or substantially similar grounds, especially if there's a co-pending district court case with an earlier trial date.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-13) of US Patent 11041262 are currently SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits by the PTAB. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01394, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the challenged claims. This indicates that a frontal attack via IPR at the PTAB has been attempted and failed, making future IPR challenges with similar circumstances (e.g., co-pending district court litigation with an earlier trial date) more difficult.

The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for Top Glory Trading Group Inc. (and its privies) would apply to the grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-01394. For other potential defendants, the prior art and statutory grounds (primarily § 103 over US Patent No. 6,986,269 B2, US Patent No. 7,347,011 B2, and US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0118018 A1) that were presented in the petition remain available for new IPR petitions, provided they can overcome discretionary denial factors such as those articulated in Fintiv.

Regarding pattern signals, only one IPR has been filed against this patent to date, and it was denied institution. This suggests that the patent owner, Cole Haan LLC, has successfully defended against an initial PTAB challenge. The petitioner, Top Glory Trading Group Inc., does not appear to have filed multiple IPRs on this specific patent based on the provided data.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US11041262, the primary takeaway from IPR2025-01394 is that the patent's claims remain robust. Any infringement theory based on claims 1-13 is not weakened by a PTAB invalidity finding. When considering a new IPR challenge, careful attention must be paid to the Fintiv factors and any co-pending district court litigation. If district court proceedings are underway, the timeline of the district court trial relative to a potential PTAB Final Written Decision will be a critical consideration for institution.

The institution decision for IPR2025-01394 can be reviewed on the USPTO PTAB E2E system. Specifically, the Board's reasoning for the discretionary denial outlines the importance of the Fintiv factors in their decision.
The details of the discretionary denial are available in the public record of the PTAB.## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 11041262. This proceeding, IPR2025-01394, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the patent claims were not reviewed on the merits and remain untested by the PTAB. This outcome generally strengthens the patent owner's position, as a challenge was mounted and failed at the institution stage.

IPR2025-01394 — TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v. Cole Haan LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-03
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute the review, ending the proceeding before a merits determination on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Lead APJ Michael P. Tierney, APJ Stephen P. Smith, and APJ Brian P. Murphy.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,041,262 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art, including US Patent No. 6,986,269 B2 (Nike, Inc.), US Patent No. 7,347,011 B2 (Nike, Inc.), and US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0118018 A1 (Dua).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-10. The PTAB exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), citing factors from Fintiv and Sand Revolution. Specifically, the Board found that a co-pending district court litigation involving the same parties and substantially overlapping issues weighed heavily against institution, as the district court trial was scheduled to occur before any final written decision in the IPR.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding terminated due to the discretionary denial of institution. There was no settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-01394 means that all claims (1-13) of US11041262 remain in force and have not been challenged on the merits at the PTAB. A defendant facing assertion of this patent will find it harder to pursue an IPR with the same or substantially similar grounds, especially if there's a co-pending district court case with an earlier trial date.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-13) of US Patent 11041262 are currently SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits by the PTAB. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01394, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the challenged claims. This indicates that a frontal attack via IPR at the PTAB has been attempted and failed at the institution stage.

The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for Top Glory Trading Group Inc. (and its privies) would apply to the grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-01394. For other potential defendants, the prior art and statutory grounds (primarily § 103 over US Patent No. 6,986,269 B2, US Patent No. 7,347,011 B2, and US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0118018 A1) that were presented in the petition remain available for new IPR petitions. However, any new petition must carefully consider and address discretionary denial factors, particularly those related to parallel litigation and the timing of district court trials. The USPTO Director has reinforced a policy of using discretionary denial when the PTAB would serve as an expansion of, rather than an alternative to, district court litigation.

Regarding pattern signals, only one IPR has been filed against this patent to date, and it was denied institution. This suggests that the patent owner, Cole Haan LLC, has successfully defended against an initial PTAB challenge. The petitioner, Top Glory Trading Group Inc., does not appear to have filed multiple IPRs on this specific patent based on the provided data.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US11041262, the primary takeaway from IPR2025-01394 is that the patent's claims remain robust. Any infringement theory based on claims 1-13 is not weakened by a PTAB invalidity finding. When considering a new IPR challenge, careful attention must be paid to the Fintiv factors and any co-pending district court litigation. If district court proceedings are underway, the timeline of the district court trial relative to a potential PTAB Final Written Decision will be a critical consideration for institution. The Director's policy framework signals a continued trend towards discretionary denial in such overlapping cases.

The Notice of Decisions on Institution for IPR2025-01394, dated January 9, 2026, which includes the discretionary denial, is available through the USPTO's public records, for example, on the PTAB E2E system.

Inventors

• Jack Boys (Cole Haan LLC)
• Ann Bono (Cole Haan LLC)
• Aubert Shepherd (Cole Haan LLC)
• Mattias Verfl (Cole Haan LLC)

Original assignee

Cole Haan LLC is the entity named on the issued patent. Cole Haan is a global lifestyle brand that designs and retails footwear, bags, outerwear, and accessories. They ship products embodying the claims, specifically shoes with knit wingtip uppers. Cole Haan LLC is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2019-09-20 (executed) / recorded 2019-09-24 — Reel 050476/0341

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BOYS, JACK; BONO, ANN; VERFL, MATTIAS; SHEPHERD, AUBERT (inventors)
  • Assignee: COLE HAAN LLC, NEW HAMPSHIRE
  • Correspondent: MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, 500 NORTH CAPITAL STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, DC, 20001
  • Context: Transfer from inventors to original operating company assignee

• 2020-06-30 (executed) / recorded 2020-07-01 — Reel 053100/0028

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: COLE HAAN LLC
  • Assignee: ALTER DOMUS (US) LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT, ILLINOIS
  • Correspondent: DLA Piper LLP (US), 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10020
  • Context: Securitization as collateral for a loan

• 2020-09-14 (executed) / recorded 2020-09-14 — Reel 053770/0204

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: COLE HAAN LLC
  • Assignee: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., MASSACHUSETTS
  • Correspondent: MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC, 100 NORTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4700, CHARLOTTE, NC, 28202-4003
  • Context: Securitization as collateral for a loan

• 2023-08-15 (executed) / recorded 2023-08-15 — Reel 064599/0780

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: ALTER DOMUS (US) LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Assignee: COLE HAAN LLC, NEW HAMPSHIRE
  • Correspondent: K&L GATES LLP, 1601 K STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20006-1600
  • Context: Release of prior security interest

• 2023-08-15 (executed) / recorded 2023-08-15 — Reel 064599/0077

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: COLE HAAN LLC
  • Assignee: ACQUIOM AGENCY SERVICES LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT, COLORADO
  • Correspondent: K&L GATES LLP, 1601 K STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20006-1600. This correspondent recurs for a security interest and release for Cole Haan LLC.
  • Context: New securitization as collateral for a loan

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11041262
    2019 : Inventors assign to Cole Haan LLC
    2020 : Securitized to Alter Domus
         : Securitized to Bank of America
    2021 : Patent issued
    2023 : Released from Alter Domus
         : Securitized to Acquiom Agency

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The primary assignee is Cole Haan LLC, an operating company. The other entities are collateral agents for security agreements, which is a common financial transaction.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the named assignees or collateral agents appear on public NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. K&L Gates LLP appears as the correspondent for both the 2023-08-15 Release by Secured Party (Reel 064599/0780) and the 2023-08-15 Security Interest (Reel 064599/0077).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. The transfers primarily relate to securitization agreements rather than consecutive ownership changes.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there is litigation noted on Google Patents, the assignment records mainly reflect financial arrangements rather than a direct transfer preceding a lawsuit. The earliest listed litigation on Google Patents is an IPR filed by Unified Patents in 2025, long after the initial assignment to Cole Haan and the security agreements.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Cole Haan LLC appears to be an active, operating company.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no indication in the assignment records or public information that Cole Haan LLC has transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on their behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is not currently held by a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. The patent is currently held by Cole Haan LLC, an operating company that manufactures and sells footwear. The recorded assignments primarily reflect securitization agreements, which are financial instruments and not indicative of NPE activity. While there is a repeat correspondent for some of the security agreement filings, this does not outweigh the strong evidence of an operating company owner. For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center search for US11041262.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 11041262, I will examine the "Cited By" and "Citations" sections of the patent on Google Patents, which provides a list of references considered by the patent examiner and other patents that have cited US11041262. I will then perform USPTO searches for relevant patent numbers to gather more details.

Based on the provided patent text, here are some of the cited prior art references. It's important to note that without access to the full prosecution history from the USPTO, a definitive statement on which specific claims are anticipated by each piece of prior art is not possible in this format, as this typically involves a detailed claim-by-claim analysis against the prior art disclosures. However, I can indicate the potential areas of overlap based on their titles and abstracts.

Here's an analysis of selected prior art documents mentioned:

Patent Citations:

• US20180008006A1

  • Full Citation: US20180008006A1 (Cole Haan Llc)
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2018-01-11 / Filing: 2016-07-08 (Priority Date)
  • Brief Description: Titled "Shoe Having Knit Wingtip Upper," this is an earlier publication by the same assignee and inventors. Its abstract describes a shoe with a knit upper having different knit structures, a boundary line, and broguing, very similar to US11041262.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Highly likely to anticipate many, if not all, claims of US11041262, particularly Independent Claims 1 and 7, given the same title, assignee, and similar abstract. This appears to be a parent application or closely related continuation.

• US6986269B2

  • Full Citation: US6986269B2 (Nike, Inc.)
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2006-01-17 / Filing: 2002-12-18
  • Brief Description: Titled "Footwear with knit upper and method of manufacturing the footwear," this patent discusses footwear with knit uppers, including potential for fusible filaments and fibers.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Could potentially anticipate aspects related to the general concept of a knit upper and its manufacturing process (Claim 1 and 7), particularly regarding the use of different yarns and heat-setting, depending on the specifics of its knit structure and decorative patterns.

• EP1437057A1

  • Full Citation: EP1437057A1 (Mizuno Corporation)
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2004-07-14 / Filing: 2003-01-10
  • Brief Description: Titled "Light weight shoes," this European patent application likely focuses on materials and constructions for reducing shoe weight, possibly including knit uppers.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Could potentially anticipate claims related to the overall construction of a lightweight shoe (Claim 7) if it describes knit uppers with similar regional constructions, even if it doesn't explicitly mention wingtip patterns or specific stitch types.

• US20150342285A1

  • Full Citation: US20150342285A1 (Nike, Inc.)
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2015-12-03 / Filing: 2014-05-30
  • Brief Description: Titled "Method Of Making An Article Of Footwear Including Knitting A Knitted Component Of Warp Knit Construction Forming A Seamless Bootie With Tucked-In Portion," this patent details methods of knitting seamless footwear components.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is relevant to the "seamlessly knitted" aspects of Claims 1 and 7, as it describes methods for creating unitary knitted components. Depending on the specific knitted regions and patterns disclosed, it could anticipate elements of the one-piece knit upper construction.

• WO2015038344A1

  • Full Citation: WO2015038344A1 (Nike Innovate C.V.)
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2015-03-19 / Filing: 2013-09-13
  • Brief Description: Titled "Article of footwear incorporating a knitted component with monofilament areas," this international publication suggests knit components with varying material properties.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Could anticipate aspects of Claims 1 and 7 related to having different "types of knit structure" (e.g., jersey and pointelle) if the monofilament areas create distinct knit structures with different properties.

Non-Patent Citations:

• Anonymous, "The Ultimate Guide to Men's Shoes..."
  • Full Citation: Anonymous, "The Ultimate Guide to Men's Shoes. Complete with Wardrobe Pairings.", Guys Footwear Archives—Manners & Mischief, Dec. 10, 2014, 11 pages.
  • Publication/Filing Date: 2014-12-10
  • Brief Description: This is a non-patent publication (likely a blog or article) discussing men's shoes, including traditional styles like wingtips and broguing.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): While not a patent, this document could serve as evidence of the aesthetic features of a "wingtip pattern" and "broguing" being known in the art prior to the priority date of US11041262. It would likely not anticipate the specific knitted construction methods or seamless integration described in the claims, but rather the general ornamental design concept.

It's crucial to reiterate that a full anticipation analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a detailed comparison of each limitation of the claims against the complete disclosure of each prior art reference. The notes above provide a high-level indication of potential relevance.

US Patent 11041262 details a shoe with a knit wingtip upper, featuring a unitary one-piece knitted element with distinct knit structures (jersey and pointelle stitches) and integrated broguing. The key to assessing its obviousness lies in determining if a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to combine existing prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The relevant date for prior art is the priority date, which is July 8, 2016.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A patent claim is obvious if "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." 35 U.S.C. § 103. This analysis considers the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and any secondary considerations of non-obviousness.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art:
A PHOSITA in this field would likely have experience in footwear design, textile manufacturing (particularly knitting processes), and material science related to yarns and fabrics used in shoes.

Combinations of Prior Art and Motivation to Combine:

The core inventive step appears to be the seamless knitting of a unitary one-piece upper with integrated wingtip patterns and broguing, utilizing different knit structures (jersey and pointelle) created during the knitting process.

1. Combination 1: US 6986269 B2 in view of traditional wingtip shoe designs (e.g., as described in "The Ultimate Guide to Men's Shoes")

   • US 6986269 B2 (Nike, Inc.): This patent describes footwear with a knit upper and a method of manufacturing the footwear. It explicitly discusses forming a knit upper as a unitary one-piece construction on a knitting machine, with various regions like the instep, toe, lateral and medial sides, and heel. It also mentions the use of different yarns and the ability to impart properties like durability and stretch-resistance through material combination. This reference establishes the concept of a seamlessly knitted, one-piece upper for a shoe with defined regions.
   • "The Ultimate Guide to Men's Shoes" (Anonymous, 2014): This non-patent literature describes traditional wingtip shoe designs, which inherently include wingtip patterns and broguing. These designs are well-known in the art of footwear.
   • Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the seamless knit upper technology of US 6986269 B2 with the aesthetic features of traditional wingtip shoes. The motivation would be to create a modern, comfortable shoe that retains the classic, desirable wingtip style. Integrating the wingtip pattern and broguing during the knitting process (rather than as an post-knitting embellishment) would be an obvious design choice for a knit upper, as it aligns with the seamless, unitary construction taught by US 6986269 B2 and eliminates additional manufacturing steps. The knitting machine described in US 6986269 B2 would be capable of forming such patterns and holes.

2. Combination 2: US 6986269 B2 in view of US 4785558 A (Toray Industries, Inc.) and common knitting knowledge regarding different stitch types.

   • US 6986269 B2 (Nike, Inc.): As above, this reference teaches a seamless, one-piece knit upper.
   • US 4785558 A (Toray Industries, Inc.): This patent describes a shoe upper of interknitted outer and inner knit layers. While it focuses on double-layer knitting, it highlights the use of different knit structures within an upper.
   • Common Knitting Knowledge: A PHOSITA would be aware that knitting machines can create various stitch types (e.g., jersey, pointelle) and that different stitch patterns offer varying aesthetic and functional properties (e.g., tightness, breathability, texture). The selection of jersey stitch for one area (e.g., toe for durability/structure) and pointelle stitch for another (e.g., metatarsal for breathability/flexibility or aesthetic) would be a matter of routine design choice for a skilled knitter aiming to optimize comfort, fit, and appearance in different regions of a shoe upper.
   • Motivation to Combine: Given the teachings of US 6986269 B2 for unitary knit uppers, and the general knowledge in knitting of using diverse stitch types (as also implied by US 4785558 A's focus on different knit layers), a PHOSITA would be motivated to apply different knit structures, such as jersey and pointelle, to specific regions of the seamless upper to achieve desired performance or aesthetic characteristics, including the formation of a wingtip pattern. The idea of forming a "boundary line" between these areas would naturally arise from the desire to create distinct visual or functional zones, and placing broguing along such a boundary would be a common decorative element in wingtip styles.

3. Combination 3: US 6986269 B2 in view of US 20040118018 A1 (Bhupesh Dua) or US 20150272274 A1 (Under Armour, Inc.) regarding materials.

   • US 6986269 B2 (Nike, Inc.): Teaches knit uppers and mentions various yarns.
   • US 20040118018 A1 (Bhupesh Dua): Discloses footwear incorporating a textile with fusible filaments and fibers.
   • US 20150272274 A1 (Under Armour, Inc.): Mentions footwear including a textile element which can be knitted.
   • Motivation to Combine: Once the concept of a knit upper with integrated patterns is established (from Combination 1), a PHOSITA would be motivated to select appropriate yarns for the desired properties. The use of hot melt yarn with other yarns (e.g., polyester or spandex) for improved conformity to a last upon heating, as described in US11041262, would be an obvious application of known material science. Fusible filaments and fibers (hot melt yarns) are known in the textile art for their ability to bond and provide structural integrity or shape retention when heated. Therefore, incorporating such yarns into a seamlessly knitted upper to achieve a desired shoe shape after lasting would be a predictable outcome of combining known knitting and material technologies.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

Independent Claims 1 and 7 of US11041262 appear obvious when considering the combination of prior art. The concept of a unitary, one-piece knitted shoe upper with distinct regions is clearly taught by US 6986269 B2. The aesthetic elements of wingtip patterns and broguing are well-established in footwear design, as evidenced by general knowledge and references like "The Ultimate Guide to Men's Shoes." A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate these known aesthetic features into a seamlessly knitted upper to create a stylish and comfortable shoe. Furthermore, the use of different knit structures (jersey and pointelle) within a single knitted article is a routine design choice for knitters, and the use of hot melt yarns for shaping and bonding in footwear is a known technique in material science. Therefore, the combination of these elements, each known in the prior art for their respective functions, to create the claimed shoe and method of manufacture would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.