Barnes, Aaron Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 27, 20202019000250 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/860,272 09/21/2015 Aaron Barnes 5094.01US02 1195 87197 7590 05/27/2020 Skaar Ulbrich Macari, P.A. 601 Carlson Parkway Suite 1050 Minneapolis, MN 55305 EXAMINER KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3711 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2020 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): pto@sumiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AARON BARNES ____________ Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. An oral hearing was held on May 14, 2020. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Aaron Barnes. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 2 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 14, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. An indoor basketball game system, comprising: a backboard, the backboard comprising a center section having a front surface and a back surface, a first side section and a second side section, the first side section disposed along a first vertical side edge of the center section and the second side section disposed along an opposing second vertical side edge of the center section, each of the first side section and the second side section being coupled to the center section to pivot with respect to the center section about a vertical axis, the first section adapted to pivot greater than 90 degrees with respect to the center section to enable an off-center arc of shooting; a ball deflector coupled to the backboard, the ball deflector comprising a center portion, a first arm and a second arm, the first arm disposed along a first side edge of the center portion and the second arm disposed along an opposing second side edge of the center portion, each of the first arm and the second arm coupled to the center portion to pivot with respect to the center portion along a respective first side edge and second side edge of the center portion, the first arm adapted to extend between the first side section and center portion when the first side section is angled 90 degrees or greater; and a basketball hoop assembly disposed on the front surface of the center section of the backboard, the hoop assembly including a rim pivotably coupled to a mounting plate such that the rim can be folded flat against the center section of the backboard, wherein the center portion of the ball deflector is secured to the center section of the backboard such that a plane of the center portion forms an angle of more than 90 degrees with respect to the front surface of the backboard center portion. EVIDENCE The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 3 Seals US 4,022,472 May 10, 1977 Hayes US 4,036,494 July 19, 1977 Wares US 4,869,502 Sept. 26, 1989 Brenner US 5,536,003 July 16, 1996 Tien US 6,224,504 B1 May 1, 2001 Zheng US 6,698,441 B1 Mar. 2, 2004 Morris US 7,086,189 B2 Aug. 8, 2006 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 3, 6–8, 10–16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, and Tien. Non-Final Act. 2–12. II. Claims 2 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, Tien, and Morris. Id. at 12–13. III. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, Tien, and Seals. Id. at 14–15. IV. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, Tien, and Brenner. Id. at 15–16. V. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng and Hayes. Id. at 16–18. VI. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Tien, and Hayes. Id. at 16–18. VII. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Hayes, and Wares. Id. at 18–19. VIII. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Tien, Hayes, and Wares. Id. at 18–19. Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 4 OPINION Rejection I The Examiner relies on Zheng to teach many of the limitations of independent claim 1, including, among other things, a ball deflector. Non- Final Act. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Zheng teaches “ball deflector (additional panel 60) coupled to the backboard (to its center section via side 66) . . . , the ball deflector comprising a center portion, a first arm and a second arm (side edges/brinks/flanges of the panel).” Id. (citing Zheng 4:19–34, Figs. 1, 3A) (boldface omitted). The Examiner acknowledges that: Zheng does not disclose each of the first arm and the second arm coupled to the center portion to pivot with respect to the center portion along a respective first side edge and second side edge of the center portion, the first arm adapted to extend between the first side section and center portion when the first side section is angled 90 degrees or greater. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Wares teaches “each of the first arm and the second arm coupled to the center portion to pivot with respect to the center portion along a respective first side edge and second side edge of the center portion” and “the first arm adapted to extend between the first side section and center portion when the first side section is angled 90 degrees or greater (44[]L and 44R cantilevered panels, which are at inclined angle relative to track assembly 42).” Id. at 4–5 (citing Wares Figs. 1, 6, 5:55– 6:40). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form Zheng’s device wherein each of the first arm and the second arm coupled to the center portion to pivot with respect to the center portion along a respective first side edge and second side edge of the center portion, the first arm adapted to extend Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 5 between the first side section and center portion when the first side section is angled 90 degrees or greater as taught by Wares for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by the explicit suggestion of the prior art to use a ball deflector with side arms that are in an angle more than 90 degrees from a center portion. Id. at 5 (emphasis added). Appellant argues that “[i]t is quite unreasonable to contend that the continuous outer perimeter frame of [Zheng’s] fabric panel is an ‘arm.’” Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 6 (referencing Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition of “arm” as “a slender part of a structure, machine, or an instrument projecting from a main part, axis, or fulcrum” and arguing that “[t]he edges of [Zheng’s] panel 60 are not arms . . . . [T]here are no parts of panel 60 that project from an edge of the panel. In other words, no structure extends beyond the border of the panel 60.”). The Examiner responds that “each edge/side/flange of Zheng’s ball deflector 60, reasonably can be construed as an arm, as being a slender part of a structure projecting from a main part.” Ans. 13 (including Examiner-annotated version of Fig. 1 of Zheng with arrows pointing to the edges of Zheng’s deflector panel 60). We agree with Appellant that Zheng’s deflector panel lacks arms in that it is unreasonable to consider the side edges of Zheng’s deflector panel 60 as projecting from a main part of the fabric panel. Nor are the side edges “adapted to extend between the first side section and center portion when the first side section is angled 90 degrees or greater” as claimed. Appellant’s Specification describes the arms as “opposing side wings or arms 122 and 124” that are preferably about twelve inches wide, securable to a respective side panel 110 and 112 of the backboard 102, and foldable. Spec. 7:8–19, 9:1–6, Figs. 4, 8. Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 6 Because Zheng lacks arms when considering the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term in light of its plain meaning consistent with the Specification, and the full claim language, the Examiner’s rejection, which relies on the modification of Zheng’s purported arms so as to be pivotable and disposed at an angle as taught by Wares (Non-Final Act. 5, 6–7), is based on an erroneous finding as to the scope and content of Zheng and must fail. Moreover, Appellant argues that “Wares does not teach the first arm adapted to extend between the first side section and center portion when the first side section is angled 90 degrees or greater.” Appeal Br. 18 (boldface omitted). In particular, Appellant argues that “[t]he sides 44L and 44R of the trough 42 in Wares cannot extend towards a side section of the backboard as there are no side sections of the backboard to extend toward” and “[t]he sides 44L and 44R are not even shown to extend beyond the vertical sides of the backboard 100.” Id. Appellant maintains that “Wares clearly cannot be said to disclose Appellant’s claimed feature of the arm of the deflector adapted to extend between the first side section of the backboard and center portion of the deflector when the first side section of the backboard is angled 90 degrees or greater.” Id. We agree with Appellant that Wares does not teach the claimed limitation. Even if the Examiner has explained how Wares teaches a deflector having arms that can be positioned at an angle of 90 degrees or more relative to a center portion of the deflector (Non-Final Act. 4–5 (explaining that cantilevered panels 44L, 44R “are at an inclined angle relative to track assembly 42”; Wares Fig. 1), the Examiner has not explained adequately how Wares teaches a deflector having an arm adapted to extend between the Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 7 center portion of the deflector and a first side section of the backboard when the first side section of the backboard is angled 90 degrees or greater, as required by independent claim 1. In particular, Wares lacks side sections (let alone pivoting side sections) as part of its backboard, and instead contemplates attachment of its identified deflector arms 44L, 44R to cross bar 20 of frame 12 disposed on a traditional flat backboard. The Examiner has not explained adequately how Wares teaches cantilevered panels 44L, 44R that are adapted to extend from a center portion of a deflector to a side section of a backboard that is angled greater than 90 degrees relative to a center section of a backboard. In sum, the Examiner has not adequately supported the finding that Wares teaches cantilevered panels 44L, 44R that are adapted to extend to a side section of a backboard when the side section of the backboard is angled 90 degrees or greater relative to a center section of the backboard. Consequently, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is also erroneous because it is based on an insufficiently supported finding as to the scope and content of Wares. The Examiner also made findings, among other things, that although Zheng “is not specific regarding his basketball hoop assembly including a rim pivotably coupled to a mounting plate such that the rim can be folded flat against the center section of the backboard (Non-Final Act. 4), “Tien discloses a basketball hoop assembly disposed on a front surface of a center section of a backboard, the hoop assembly including a rim pivotably coupled to a mounting plate such that the rim can be folded flat against the center section of the backboard” (id. at 7) (citing Tien Figs. 2, 4, 2:55–57). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to form Zheng’s hoop Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 8 assembly to pivot and fold[] as taught by Tien for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Tien’s suggestion to include such pivot/foldable hoop within the basketball system that can be folded while the basketball system is not in use for storage and/or transportation of the assembly.” Id. at 7–8. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited prior art teaches “a rim pivotably coupled to a mounting plate.” Appeal Br. 19. More specifically, Appellant argues that although “Tien mentions that the ‘basket 13 is pivotally mounted on the backboard 14 so that the basket can be folded on the backboard 14 when not in use,’” “there is no mention of the rim portion of the ba[sket] being able to pivot with respect to its mounting plate.” Id. Appellant continues that “Tien’s figures fail to show any sort of hinge or other structure that would enable the pivoting of the rim with respect to the mounting plate” and “[m]ost likely, the entire basket 13, including the mounting plate, pivots with respect to the backboard because that is exactly how Tien describes the basket functioning.” Id. In other words, Appellant argues that “the rim of Tien is welded to the mounting plate so that Appellant’s pivoting could not occur.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 6 (“the rim appears to be welded directly to the mounting plate as best can be discerned from [Tien’s] FIG. 4.”). The Examiner responds by identifying Tien’s mounting plate and rim in an Examiner-annotated drawing and explaining that “it is clear that the mounting bracket of Tien[] is connected to the backboard and it is also very clear that Tien’s rim is folded, against a section of the backboard, while not in use.” Ans. 15. Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 9 An Examiner’s factual finding regarding what a reference discloses must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In order to satisfy this standard, the evidence must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the alleged facts are actually true. See Bosies v. Benedict, 27 F.3d 539, 542 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (noting that the preponderance of the evidence standard requires the fact finder ‘to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies” in the cited references. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); see In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The Examiner is correct that Tien teaches that basket 13 is pivotally mounted on backboard 14 so that backet 13 can be folded on backboard 14 when not in use. Final Act. 7 (citing Tien, 2:55–57, Figs. 2, 4). However, as Appellant argues, Figure 4 of Tien illustrates the rim attached to a mounting plate without any apparent means for the rim to pivot relative to the mounting plate. On this record, one of ordinary skill in the art can only speculate as to whether Tien’s rim is pivotably coupled to a mounting plate as required by the claim, and as per the instructions above, such speculation is insufficient to support the rejection. With respect to independent claim 14, the Examiner relies on the same findings made in connection with independent claim 1. Non-Final Act. 11. Thus, the rejection of claim 14 relies on the Examiner’s same erroneous finding that Zheng discloses arms that can then be modified so as to be pivotable and disposed at angle as taught by Wares, as well as the same Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 10 speculative finding that Tien discloses a rim pivotably coupled to a mounting plate. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Zheng, Wares, and Tien renders obvious the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 14. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 14, and claims 3, 6– 8, 10–13, 15, 16, and 18 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, and Tien. Rejections II, III, and IV Claims 2, 4, 5, and 9 depend from independent claim 1, and claim 17 depends from independent claim 14. Appeal Br. 26–28 (Claims App.). Claims 2 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, Tien, and Morris. Non-Final Act. 12–13. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, Tien, and Seals. Id. at 14–15. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, Tien, and Brenner. Id. at 15–16. The rejections of these claims rely on the Examiner’s erroneous finding that Zheng discloses arms that can then be modified so as to be pivotable and disposed at angle as taught by Wares, as well as the speculative finding that Tien discloses a rim pivotably coupled to a mounting plate. Id. at 12–16. The rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, and 9 also rely on the Examiner’s insufficiently supported finding that Wares teaches arms on a deflector panel that are adapted to extend to a side section of a backboard when the side section of the backboard is angled 90 degrees or greater relative to a center section of the backboard. Id. at 12–13. Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 11 The Examiner does not explain how Morris, Seals, and/or Brenner might cure these underlying deficiencies. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, of: claims 2 and 17 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, Tien, and Morris, claims 4 and 5 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, Tien, and Seals, and claim 9 as unpatentable over Zheng, Wares, Tien, and Brenner. Rejections V and VI With respect to independent claim 19, the Examiner relies in part on the same findings made in connection with independent claim 1. Non-Final Act. 16–18. In particular, the Examiner states that “[w]ith respect to the positions of the side section angled greater than 90 degrees, note the [E]xaminer discussion with respect to claim 1.” Id. at 17. In connection with claim 1, the Examiner states “with respect to the first section adapted to pivot greater than 90 degrees with respect to the center section to enable off- center arc shooting, Zheng discloses that stitching 50 is acting as a hinge[] (col. 4, lines 15+) that allows the movement of panels 22 and 26 (Fig. 2B in conjunction to Fig. 3A as well as col. 4, line 8+).” Id. at 8.2 2 The Examiner sets forth an alternative position that “Tien discloses [a] first section adapted to pivot greater than 90 degrees with respect to the center section to enable off-center arc shooting (hinged doors 12 that are pivot[ing] more than 90 degrees relative to center/device 11)[ ](Figs. 2, 4 and 5; 2:36– 62)” and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Zheng’s first section to be adapted to pivot more than 90 degrees as taught by Tien as a “known technique to improve [a] similar device in the same way to provide means that can facilitate rebounding of a basketball as well as means suitable to be folded when the device is not in use.” Non-Final Act. 8–9. We note that we do not address this alternative basis, or Appellant’s arguments in response thereto, because we affirm the Examiner’s rejection on the basis that the relevant teaching is found in Zheng as explained herein. Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 12 The Examiner also acknowledges that “Zheng does not disclose a plurality of fasteners extending through the backboard center section for securing the basketball hoop assembly to the backboard section.” Non-Final Act. 17. The Examiner, however, finds that “in [a] similar field of basketball systems devices, Hayes discloses a plurality of fasteners extending through the backboard center section (central panel 12) for securing the basketball hoop assembly (18) to the backboard section.” Id. (citing Hayes Fig. 1, 2:35+). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to form Zheng’s [device] to include a plurality of fasteners extending through the backboard center section for securing the basketball hoop assembly to the backboard section as taught by Hayes” in order “to use known means . . . to secure a hoop means to a basketball means thus allowing a complete device configure[d] to receive a thrown basketball thereto while the device is in the use position.” Id. Appellant first argues that “neither Zheng nor Tien can be said to disclose this feature [of the first side section of the backboard adapted to be angled greater than 90 degrees with respect to the center section to enable an off-center arc of shooting].” Appeal Br. 23. More particularly, Appellant argues that “the side panels [of Zheng] cannot be pivoted greater than 90 degrees with respect to the center section to enable an off-center arc of shooting” because “the side panels are always maintained at a ninety degree angle with respect to the center panel 24” for the purpose of “securing the side panels 22 and 26 to [deflector] panel 60 with attachment mechanisms 70 and 72” in light of “the lack of rigidity of the fabric panels comprising the structure.” Id. at 13 (emphasis omitted). Appellant takes the position that “Zheng is not capable of the alleged functional characteristic due to the Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 13 necessity of securing the side panels to the deflector panel” and moreover, the claims “recite a structural feature.” Id. at 14. The Examiner responds that “as shown in Fig. 3A . . . , it clearly can be noted that the side panels (such as panel 22) freely can pivot-rotate, more than 90º, relative to center panel 24.” Ans. 4 (citing Zheng Fig. 3A and, in particular, its arrow notation adjacent side panel 22 that indicates the capacity for rotating movement in both clockwise and counter-clockwise directions). Moreover, the Examiner responds that “panel 60 is an additional structure, that doesn’t govern the pivot manner of the side panels relative to the center panel, and the Velcro are merely connection means between the ball deflector and the backboard (which is similar, equivalent to [A]ppellant’s Velcro, which perform the same).” Id. at 5. We agree with the Examiner’s above response and find that the Examiner has supported by a preponderance of the evidence that Zheng’s side panels 22, 26 are adapted to pivot greater than 90 degrees with respect to center section 24 to enable off-center arc of shooting. See Non-Final Act. 8; Ans. 3–6. Moreover, although Zheng teaches use of removable attachment mechanisms such as VELCRO™ straps 70, 72 to secure the side panels of the backboard structure to the perimeter of deflector panel 60 (Appeal Br. 13 (citing Zheng 4:35–38)), Zheng does not suggest that such attachment mechanisms are necessary for operation in that Zheng merely describes that such attachment mechanisms “can be provided.” Zheng 4:35–38. We have also considered Appellant’s argument that “Zheng’s structure . . . cannot be used without the side panels 22 and 26 fastened securely to the deflector panel 60 given the lack of rigidity of the fabric structure.” Appeal Br. 13 (underlining omitted) (citing Zheng 4:60–5:5 as Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 14 suggesting that “coupling of the side panels 22 and 26 to the deflector panel 60 provides important lateral support to prevent tipping or toppling of the structure.”). Zheng, however, more precisely contemplates that panel 60 itself can be “used as a support mechanism to provide stability to the three panels 22, 24, 26” and that it is “without the panel 60, [that] the three panels 22, 24, 26 may be susceptible to being tipped or toppled.” Zheng 4:60–63. Thus, we are not persuaded that pivoting Zheng’s backboard side sections greater than 90 degrees relative to the center section of the backboard would somehow result in tipping or toppling of the structure in that there would still be three panels and a deflector panel to act as a support mechanism. Appellant also argues that “there can be no motivation to combine the fasteners of Hayes with the structure of Zheng” because “[t]he backboard of Zheng is made from fabric panels” and “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion of how the fasteners of Hayes would be secured to Zheng’s fabric panels without some additional experimentation.” Appeal Br. 23. Moreover, Appellant argues that “the use of mechanical fasteners . . . would render [Zheng] inoperable, as the Zheng device is designed to be folded into a compact configuration and the use of mechanical fasteners would prevent the device from being folded, and may rip or tear the fabric,” thereby rendering Zheng unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Id. (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Appellant also argues that “[r]egarding Tien, the use of the Hayes fasteners may interfere with the pivotability of the basket.” Id. The Examiner responds that “Zheng is not specific to the manner of connecting the hoop to the backboard,” but “[i]t is well known in the art (as taught for example by Hayes) to use fasteners extending through the Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 15 backboard to the hoop, to [e]nsure a firm and safe connection between the backboard and the hoop.” Ans. 22–23. The Examiner further responds that “[t]here is nothing preventing, or allegedly [rendering] inoperable, by including mechanical fasteners within Zheng, to connect the backboard to the hoop, in a well-known and a conventional manner, to insure that the hoop is firmly and safely connected thereto.” Id. at 23. Appellant replies that “[i]t is common sense that one would not attempt to use mechanical fasteners, such as in Hayes, to secure the hoop’s bracket to a flexible fabric such as used in Zheng” as “[t]he fasteners would likely rip through the fabric and the hoop would droop downward because the fabric is not stiff enough to support the hoop’s weight while remaining flexible enough to fold and twist.” Reply Br. 10. Appellant further replies that “Zheng even appears to show the hoop 80 mounted to a separate panel rather than through the fabric backboard 24.” Id. Claim 19 requires that the basketball hoop assembly be secured to the backboard center section via a plurality of fasteners extending through the backboard center section. Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.). Although Zheng’s center section 24 has hoop assembly 80 (Zheng Fig. 1), Zheng is silent regarding how hoop assembly 80 is connected to center panel 24. See id. at 4:49–51 (“The structure 20 in [Zheng’s] FIG 1 can be used as a play structure by providing a hoop or basket 80 on the fabric 42 of the rear panel 24 on the interior-facing side of the fabric.”). Here, the Examiner relies on Hayes for its general teachings regarding fasteners for securing basketball hoop assembly 18 to central panel 12. Non-Final Act. 17 (citing Hayes Fig. 1; 2:35+). Although Hayes appears to use fasteners in connection with a rigid central panel rather than a fabric panel, an artisan is not compelled to Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 16 blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear Siegler Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Some adaptation of Hayes’ fasteners may be required for fastening a hoop to fabric and/or to ensure foldability and pivotability, but Appellant has not provided any persuasive evidence or technical reasoning that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Zheng’s indoor basketball hoop (with or without the teachings of Tien) with fasteners would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art or unpredictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Moreover, Appellant acknowledges that “Zheng even appears to show the hoop 80 mounted to a separate panel rather than through the fabric backboard 24.” Reply Br. 10. Thus, to the extent that Zheng’s hoop may be mounted to a separate panel within Zheng’s center section 24, with such a separate panel potentially made of a more rigid material than the surrounding fabric, the applicability of Hayes’ fasteners is even more apparent. We note that the claim does not preclude such a separate panel from being a portion of the claimed backboard center section through which fasteners extend to secure a basketball hoop. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Zheng and Hayes, either with or without Tien, renders obvious the subject matter of independent claim 19. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng and Hayes, either with or without Tien. Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 17 Rejections VII and VIII Dependent claim 20 further recites: securing a first arm to the ball deflector along a first side edge of the ball deflector such that the first arm can pivot with respect to the ball deflector more than 90 degrees while maintaining contact with the first side section of the backboard; securing a second arm to the ball deflector along a second side edge of the ball deflector such that the second arm can pivot with respect to the ball deflector; securing a the first arm to the first side section; and securing the second arm to the second side section. Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that “Wares discloses each of the first arm and the second arm coupled to the center portion to pivot with respect to the center portion along a respective first side edge and second side edge of the center portion, the first arm adapted to extend between the first side section and center portion when the first side section is angled 90 degrees or greater (44 L and 44R cantilevered panels, which are at inclined angle relative to track assembly 42).” Non-Final Act. 18 (citing Wares Figs. 1, 6; 5:55-6:40). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to form Zheng’s device wherein . . . the first arm [is] adapted to extend between the first side section and center portion when the first side section is angled 90 degrees or greater as taught by Wares for the reason discussed above with respect to claim 1.” Id. at 18–19. For the same reasons as discussed above in connection with Rejection I, the Examiner’s rejection relies on the Examiner’s erroneous finding that Zheng discloses arms that can then be modified so as to be pivotable and disposed at an angle as taught by Wares. Non-Final Act. 18– 19. Moreover, for the same reasons as discussed above in connection with Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 18 Rejection I, the Examiner has not supported adequately the finding that Wares teaches cantilevered panels 44L, 44R that are adapted to extend to a side section of a backboard when the side section of the backboard is angled 90 degrees or greater relative to the backboard’s center section. Instead, the Examiner has merely pointed out that Wares’ deflector has first and second arms that can pivot with respect to Wares’ deflector center portion (Non- Final Act. 18 (referencing “44L and 44R cantilevered panels, which are at an inclined angle relative to track assembly 42) (citing Wares Figs. 1, 6; 5:55– 6:40)), not that they can pivot so as to extend to and maintain contact with the first side section of the backboard when the side section of the backboard is angled 90 degrees or greater relative to the backboard’s center section. Consequently, the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is also based on an insufficiently supported finding as to the scope and content of Wares. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Zheng, Hayes, and Wares, with or without Tien, renders obvious the subject matter of dependent claim 20. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zheng, Hayes, and Wares, either with or without Tien. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 6–8, 10–16, 18 103 Zheng, Wares, Tien 1, 3, 6–8, 10–16, 18 2, 17 103 Zheng, Wares, Tien, Morris 2, 17 Appeal 2019-000250 Application 14/860,272 19 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 4, 5 103 Zheng, Wares, Tien, Seals 4, 5 9 103 Zheng, Wares, Tien, Brenner 9 19 103 Zheng, Hayes 19 19 103 Zheng, Tien, Hayes 19 20 103 Zheng, Hayes, Wares 20 20 103 Zheng, Tien, Hayes, Wares 20 Overall Outcome 19 1–18, 20 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). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation