Maatita appeals from a PTAB decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of his design patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The PTAB found that the single, two-dimensional figure in Maatita’s application did not adequately depict the three-dimensional article that was claimed. Maatita argues that his single figure adequately depicts his design for a shoe bottom and that any person skilled in the art could make his design based on his twodimensional figure. The PTO argues that Maatita’s disclosure is indefinite and does not adequately enable an ordinary designer to make the claimed design because it would require speculation as to how the claimed design is applied in the context of a three-dimensional shoe bottom.