Sanders, Dewayne E.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2020

Added 110712 PRPS --> 15010942 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2020)

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.
15/010,942 01/29/2016 Dewayne E. Sanders SAK1529 4640
44088 7590 04/02/2020
KAUFHOLD DIX PATENT LAW
P. O. BOX 89626
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109
EXAMINER
AHMAD, FARIA F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2020 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):
jason@kaufholdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DEWAYNE E. SANDERS

Appeal 2019-005468
Application 15/010,942
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Dewayne E. Sanders. Appeal Br. 2 (filed Mar. 20, 2017).
Appeal 2019-005468
Application 15/010,942

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subject Matter on Appeal
The Appellant’s invention “relates to closure devices and more
particularly pertains to a new closure device for facilitating closure of
adjacent panels of a golf cart enclosure.” Spec. 1:16–17.
Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A magnetic golf cart panel closure system comprising:
[(a)] a golf cart having a golf cart enclosure thereon, said golf
cart having a lateral side being open and defining an
entry into said golf cart, said golf enclosure including a
first panel and a second panel, said first panel extending
forward from a rear of said golf cart and over a rear
portion of said entry, said second panel extending
rearward from a front of said golf cart and over a front
portion of said entry, said first and second panels being
positioned in a closed position closing said entry or in an
open position exposing said entry;
[(b)] a plurality of first magnetic couplers being mounted on
said first panel;
[(c)] a plurality of second magnetic couplers being mounted on
said second panel;
[(d)] said first magnetic couplers being overlapped with said
second magnetic couplers such that said first and second
magnetic couplers are releasably engaged with each
other;
[(e)] said cart having a bottom edge extending along a bottom
of said entry and facing laterally away from said cart;
[(f)] at least one first mating member being attached to said
bottom edge and being positioned adjacent to said first
panel;
Appeal 2019-005468
Application 15/010,942

3

[(g)] at least one first mating member being attached to said
bottom edge and being positioned adjacent to said second
panel;
[(h)] said first panel having a second mating member attached
thereto and being releasably engaged to said first mating
member adjacent to said first panel;
[(i)] said second panel having a second mating member
attached thereto and being releasably engaged to said
first mating member adjacent to said second panel.

Rejection
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Marsh et al. (US 7,832,788 B2, iss. Nov. 16, 2010) (“Marsh”) and Knapp
(US 1,661,537, iss. Mar. 6, 1928).

ANALYSIS
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection, which relies on a
combination of teachings from Marsh and Knapp, fails to provide a reason
with rational underpinning for attaching panels of a golf cart enclosure to the
bottom edge of a golf cart. See Appeal Br. 10. The Appellant’s argument is
persuasive.
The Examiner finds that Marsh teaches a golf cart and a golf cart
enclosure having first and second panels with first and second magnetic
couplers, respectively, where the golf cart has an open lateral side defining
an entry into the golf cart and a “bottom edge,” i.e., an edge that extends
along a bottom of the entry and faces laterally away from the golf cart. See
Final Act. 2–3; supra (claim 1(a)–(e)); Marsh Figs. 1, 5A–B. The Examiner
also finds that Marsh fails to teach first mating members attached to the golf
Appeal 2019-005468
Application 15/010,942

4

cart’s bottom edge and second mating members attached to the golf cart
enclosure’s first and second panels. See Final Act. 3; supra (claim 1(f)–(i)).
The Examiner finds that Knapp teaches male members 17 of fasteners
16, which are positioned at a “bottom edge,” and that members 17
correspond to the claimed first mating members. See Final Act. 3; Knapp
1:62–67, 74–78. The Examiner is not explicit as to what structure of Knapp
is the “bottom edge,” however two possibilities exist. The first possibility is
that “bottom edge” refers to male member 17 being positioned at side
curtain 14’s bottom edge. See Knapp 1:59–78, Figs. 1, 5, 6. The second
possibility is that “bottom edge” refers to male member 17 being positioned
at or near the bottom edge of the opening between motor vehicle 10’s body
11 and top 12. See id. at 1:38–43, Fig. 1. Additionally, it is possible that the
Examiner relies on both possibilities to support the rejection. See Final
Act. 9 (“The obvious modification is supported by the need to have an
attachment means that is removable, as is demonstrated by Knapp
(regardless of to each other or to a frame, i.e. ‘cart’)” (emphasis added)).
Knapp teaches fastener 16 being positioned on a top edge of motor
vehicle’s body 11 to fasten side curtain 13 to the vehicle. See Knapp 1:38–
43, Fig. 1. Knapp also teaches the use of a separate fastener 16, which
includes male member 17 positioned on side curtain 14, attachable to female
member 18 positioned on side curtain 13. See id. at 1:59–78, Figs. 1, 5, 6.
Knapp does not teach a fastener positioned at an edge that extends along a
bottom of a motor vehicle’s lateral entry.
The Examiner finds that Knapp teaches female members 18 of
fasteners 16 and that members 18 correspond to the claimed second mating
members. See Final Act. 3; Knapp 1:59–78, Figs. 1, 5, 6.
Appeal 2019-005468
Application 15/010,942

5

The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to provide the cart as taught by
Marsh with a first mating member on the bottom edge, as
taught by Knapp (and a corresponding second mating member)
in order to removably attach panels to the cart specifically at an
edge. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
any existing attachment means in the device as taught by Marsh
with the mating members as taught by Knapp in order to have a
second panel that is separable since making attached or integral
parts separable is of routine skill in the art In re[ ]Dulberg, 289
F[.]2d 522, 523 . . . (CCPA 1961).
Final Act. 3–4; see Ans. 3–4. The Examiner explains the reasoning
particular to this conclusion in the Examiner’s Answer:
[The] Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to
replace the attachment means of Marsh with the attachment
means (first and second mating members) of Knapp, since
either type of attachment means would function equivalently (to
attach one component to the other) in order to make the both
panels separable from the golf cart and having components be
made separable is of ordinary skill in the art.
Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
The foregoing reasoning is based on the Examiner’s finding that
Marsh “is silent as to an attachment means” (id.), which we understand as
being silent to as to an attachment means between Marsh’s golf cart and golf
cart enclosure’s panels. See id. at 3–4. Here, the Examiner equates Marsh’s
silence as to an attachment means with the presence of an attachment means.
This is a logical flaw in the Examiner’s reasoning. Thereafter, the Examiner
assumes that Marsh’s non-disclosed attachment means would function
equivalently with male 17 and female members 18 of Knapp’s fastener 16,
which by its very nature is speculative. See Appeal Br. 10. Moreover, the
Appeal 2019-005468
Application 15/010,942

6

Examiner’s reasoning is only directed to replacing the “type” of Marsh’s
attachment means. We cannot reconcile how the Examiner’s reference to
“type” pertains to both the structure and location of an attachment means.
Rather, the “type” of attachment means seems to only refer to the structure
of attachment means, and not the location of the attachment means.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner fails to
provide an adequate reason with rational underpinning as to why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have positioned the first mating means at a
specific location, and in particular, the “bottom edge” of Marsh’s golf cart.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds . . . [require] some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)
(cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)).
Lastly, we note that the Examiner determines “that the golf cart panel
closure system of Marsh can be provided with the first mating member
attached at a bottom edge and a corresponding second mating member [of a
golf cart enclosure’s first or second panel].” Ans. 3. However, the lone fact
that Marsh “can be provided” with a first mating member at a bottom edge
of a golf cart does not adequately support a rejection on obvious grounds
because the lone fact is not accompanied with some reasoning with rational
underpinning explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
made such a modification.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9.

Appeal 2019-005468
Application 15/010,942

7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9 103(a) Marsh, Knapp

1–9

REVERSED