Ex Parte Rickard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

14604356 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
242.02 3983
EXAMINER
VANDERVEEN, JEFFREY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/604,356 01/23/2015
85444 7590 12/30/2016
Bay Area Technolgy Law Group PC
2171 E. Francisco Blvd., Suite L
San Rafael, CA 94901
Rodger Rickard
12/30/2016 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 RODGER RICKARD
Appeal 2017-001240
Application 14/604,356
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 3, 8, and 9. Appeal Br. 2, 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).1
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant’s Petition to Make Special Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(c)(1) was
granted on August 21, 2015, and the application was accorded “special”
status. Office of Petitions Decision, mailed Aug. 21, 2015; see Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure § 1203, Section II. Special Case (9th Ed.
Rev. 7, Nov. 2015).
Appeal 2017-001240
Application 14/604,356
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 9, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
9. An apparatus for improving the accuracy of a basketball
shooter by use of a plurality of interchangeable rim assemblies
of differing diameters, said apparatus comprising:
a basketball backboard;
an adapter secured to said basketball backboard, said adapter
comprising:
a substantially flat rectangular or square base plate having a
top, bottom and sides,
a sleeve extending from said sides and bottom of said
substantially flat rectangular or square base plate; and
a pair of locking pin assemblies comprising locking pins
each of which is mounted proximate the top of said
substantially flat rectangular or square base plate wherein
said locking pins are spring- loaded and withdrawable
toward said sides of said substantially flat rectangular or
square base plate and which selectively extend away from
said sides of said substantially flat rectangular or square base
plate; the locking pins being withdrawn when a rim
assembly is either vertically removed or inserted, thus
allowing rim assemblies of differing diameters to be
interchanged and secured within said sleeve; and wherein
said plurality of interchangeable basketball rim assemblies each
comprising:
regulation basketball rims of varying diameters, each
basketball rim assembly comprising a bracket to which a rim
is attached orthogonally thereto;
each bracket having a pair of pin stops positioned below said
rim, each bracket being sized to slide vertically over said
substantially flat rectangular or square base plate and to
frictionally fit within and be captured by said sleeve, said
pin stops being positioned on each of said bracket such that
when each bracket is inserted within said sleeve, said pins
extend from the sides of said substantially flat rectangular or
square base plate to prevent said bracket from being
removed or dislodged from said sleeve.
2
Appeal 2017-001240
Application 14/604,356
REJECTION
Claims 3,8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamilton (US 7,175,551 Bl, iss. Feb. 13, 2007), Jones
(US 5,730,667, iss. Mar. 24, 1998), and Burkhardt (US 2007/0082759 Al,
pub. Apr. 12, 2007).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Hamilton teaches an apparatus to improve
shooting accuracy including, inter alia, an adapter with base plate (housing
20, sidewalls 26) and locking pin assemblies (appendages 55, slots 28), but
lacks spring-loaded locking pins that withdraw and extend toward and from
the sides of the base plate, and also lacks plural basketball rim assemblies of
different diameters. Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner relied on Jones to teach a
spring-loaded locking pin 32 (Fig. 6), and on Burkhardt to teach a plurality
of interchangeable basketball rim assemblies of varying diameters. Id. at 6.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify
Hamilton to include the withdrawable locking pins of Jones to lock the rim
support member in a play position. Id. The Examiner also determined that
it would have been obvious to provide a plurality of rim assemblies having
various smaller openings through which a regulation-sized ball can pass to
improve shooter accuracy, as taught by Burkhardt. Id. The Examiner also
reasoned that it would have been obvious to provide a plurality of rim
assemblies each with their own brackets where Hamilton shows a rim and
bracket and Burkhardt shows a plurality of rims. Id. at 7. The Examiner
reasoned that each rim assembly would include an attachment of Burkhardt
and the recital of plural interchangeable rims in the preamble is not entitled
to patentable weight. Ans. 10.
3
Appeal 2017-001240
Application 14/604,356
Appellant argues that neither Hamilton nor Jones has anything to do
with improving the accuracy of a basketball shooter. Appeal Br. 4. Instead,
Appellant argues that Hamilton and Jones teach basketball rims that can be
removed from the backboard to allow or prevent play, as desired. Id. at 4—5.
Appellant also argues that Burkhardt does not disclose a plurality of rims
that are regulation rims of different diameters, as claimed, and Burkhardt’s
rims 4 do not look like a regulation rim because each rim insertion device 4
has hooks that connect to a basketball rim and completely change the look of
the regulation rim 8 when rim insertion device 4 is attached. Id. at 5—6.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Hamilton, Jones, and Burkhardt render obvious an apparatus comprising “a
plurality of interchangeable rim assemblies of differing diameters” as recited
in claim 9. To the extent that the Examiner has treated this limitation as an
intended use without any patentable weight (Final Act. 7; see Ans. 7—9), that
interpretation is not supported by the language of claim 9, which recites “use
of a plurality of interchangeable rim assemblies of differing diameters” in
the preamble of claim 9 and “said plurality of interchangeable basketball rim
assemblies” in the body of claim 9 where each rim assembly comprises
“regulation basketball rims of varying diameters . . . [and] a bracket to which
a rim is attached orthogonally thereto.” The body of claim 9 refers back to
the interchangeable rim assemblies of the preamble and also recites the rim
assemblies as limitations. Accordingly, the claim preamble limitation of the
“use of a plurality of interchangeable rim assemblies of differing diameters,”
when read in the context of the entire claim, is “necessary to give life,
meaning and vitality” to claim 9, and thus, should be construed as if in the
balance of the claim. See Kr op a v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951).
4
Appeal 2017-001240
Application 14/604,356
The Examiner’s alternative finding and determination that it would
have been obvious to provide Hamilton with a plurality of rim assemblies,
including rims of smaller diameters as taught by Burkhardt (Ans. 9—10),
does not teach or suggest “regulation basketball rims of varying diameters.”
In this regard, the Examiner proposes two main configurations with
The first of such configuration being two of the rim assemblies
of Hamilton being utilized wherein one of the rim assemblies has
the apparatus of Burkhardt installed and the other being the
addition of the Burkhardt apparatus as shown in Figure 2 but with
the rim attachment of the Hamilton reference being utilized in-
place of the standard rim attachment shown in Figure 2 of
Burkhardt.
Ans. 10. We understand the combination to be one rim assembly as shown
in Figure 1 of Hamilton and another rim assembly to be as shown in Figure 2
of Burkhardt, both of which figures are reproduced below.
Figure 1 of Hamilton (on the left) shows a removable rim assembly 10
and rim 45. Hamilton, 4:19—26. Figure 2 of Burkhardt (on the right) shows
rim insertion device 4 mounted rigidly on a typical basketball rim 8 to form
a unified structure such that rim 8 is not visible. Burkhardt || 31—32.
5
Appeal 2017-001240
Application 14/604,356
The proposed combination does not teach or suggest a plurality of
interchangeable rim assemblies each comprising “regulation basketball rims
of varying diameters” (emphasis added), as claimed. Figure 1 of Hamilton
discloses a quasi-regulation basketball rim, without hooks, but Figure 2 of
Burkhart, discloses a non-regulation basketball rim (rim insertion device 4).
In this regard, Appellant discloses that hoops of each rim assembly are
identical except for their diameters so that players view themselves shooting
at a regulation diameter rim. Spec. 2. Appellant discloses that regulation
rim 12 has hooks 20 for suspending a net and is 18” in diameter. Id. at 2, 7.
Appellant discloses that adapter 22 is used to insert, secure, and exchange
rim attachments 11 with a regulation 18 inch diameter rim 12 or a smaller
diameter rim(s) of 14”—16” for training, and the diameter (thickness) of a
regulation rim is 5/8 (i.e. the thickness of the metal rim itself). Id. at 7, 8.
The Examiner’s finding that Burkhardt’s rim insertion device 4 is a
regulation basketball rim is an unreasonably broad interpretation in light of
Appellant’s Specification and ordinary usage. The Examiner’s finding that
Burkhardt’s rim insert 4 on Hamilton’s removable rim 45 would appear as a
regulation rim to a player shooting from the three-point line is not supported
by a preponderance of evidence and does not establish that the combined rim
assemblies form a regulation basketball rim assembly, as claimed.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9.
Claims 3 and 8
The Examiner found that Jones teaches circular cross-section locking
pins and pin stops as recited in claims 3 and 8. The Examiner determined
that such circular cross-section locking pins are well known, obvious design
choices absent evidence that the configuration is significant. Final Act. 8.
6
Appeal 2017-001240
Application 14/604,356
Appellant argues that claims 3 and 8 are patentable for the reasons
provided for claim 9, from which these claims depend. Appeal Br. 6. We
agree. The Examiner’s proposed modification does not cure the deficiencies
of Hamilton, Jones, and Burkhardt for claim 9. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 3 and 8.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 3,8, and 9.
REVERSED
7