Shoot-A-Way, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2020

14688354 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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.
14/688,354 04/16/2015 John G. Joseph SHO2920-004D 4028
8698 7590 03/02/2020
STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
6300 Riverside Drive
Dublin, OH 43017
EXAMINER
ARYANPOUR, MITRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2020 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):
standleydocketing@standleyllp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN G. JOSEPH, TROY DAVID GEISER, and
ALBERT CHARLES ABNETT
____________

Appeal 2019-003474
Application 14/688,354
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, 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 32 and 34–40.2 We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 Shoot-A-Way, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–31 are withdrawn, and claim 33 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 17–25
(Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-003474
Application 14/688,354

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 32, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below and is
representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
32. An apparatus which enables a player to practice basketball,
comprising:
a) a portable basketball launching machine which:
i) comprises an interface that is programmable for
selecting a number of basketball passes to different
locations on a basketball court; and
ii) launches said basketball passes for said player
to catch;
b) a detector which for each of said basketball passes,
ascertains whether said player succeeded in making a goal; and
c) a processor configured to, for all of said basketball
passes, create a visual matrix, graph, scatter diagram or chart
which includes (A) data describing the location of said
basketball passes, and (B) for each of said basketball passes,
data describing whether said player’s basketball shot was
successfully made;
wherein said visual matrix, graph, scatter diagram or
chart depict a representation of said basketball court overlaid
with the percentage of the player’s successfully made basketball
shots shown at the location of said basketball passes;
wherein said visual matrix, graph, scatter diagram or
chart is updated as said basketballs are launched to said player
and said player takes said basketballs shots.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Klein US 2008/0015061 A1 Jan. 17, 2008
Chipperfield US 2008/0261726 A1 Oct. 23, 2008
Appeal 2019-003474
Application 14/688,354

3
Sniper: “The Sniper Basketball Training System,” available at https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9SqMy8xdf4, pub. July 5, 2008,3 and
“Sniper: The Ultimate Basketball Trainer,” Oct. 22, 1995.4

THE REJECTION
Claims 32 and 34–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sniper, Klein, and Chipperfield.

OPINION
The Examiner finds that Sniper teaches a basketball practice apparatus
including most of the limitations recited in claim 32. Final Act. 2–6. The
Examiner acknowledges that
Sniper does not expressly disclose the system including a
processor (the computer) configured to create a visual matrix,
graph, scatter diagram or chart which includes the user
information, wherein the visual matrix, graph, scatter diagram
or chart depict a representation of a basketball court overlaid
with the percentage of the player’s successfully made shots and
the visual matrix, graph, scatter diagram or chart is updated.
Id. at 7. However, the Examiner finds that Klein teaches “an apparatus and
method for measuring shooting performance of a user(s). The user
performance results are then gathered in graph or other tabular format for
review by the user or coach.” Id. (citing Klein ¶ 36). The Examiner finds
that “FIG. 2C illustrates a further console embodiment, in which the shooter
or coach can configure display area (204) to display one or more cells
superimposed on the playing field in order to select shot locations (see

3 The Sniper video was made of record by the Information Disclosure
Statement and Non-Patent Literature filings dated March 30, 2016.
4 The Sniper document was made of record by the Information Disclosure
Statement and Non-Patent Literature filings dated April 15, 2016.
Appeal 2019-003474
Application 14/688,354

4
paragraph 0027).” Id. (boldface and underlining omitted). The Examiner
also finds that Chipperfield “teaches by viewing a record of the number of
shots made and missed by a particular player at simulated positions on a
basketball court, a coach can determine a player’s shooting strengths and
shooting weaknesses.” Id. at 9; see also id. (“upon completion of a shooting
session, a player (or coach) may receive a print-out summarizing the various
system variables and the player’s shooting performance”). The Examiner
concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have provided a computer/processor which has the ability to
receive and store the gathered data from a practice session for
one or more of the users for Sniper’s assembly so that the user
or coach is able to review the gathered information in order to
determine the training course necessary for improving a user(s)
performance.
Id. at 10.
Appellant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest a
“visual matrix, graph, scatter diagram or chart [that] depict[s] a
representation of said basketball court overlaid with the percentage of the
player’s successfully made basketball shots shown at the location of said
basketball passes,” as recited in claim 32. See Appeal Br. 7–11. In
particular, Appellant asserts that “Klein merely teaches presenting summary
statistics in a format which emulates a basketball score board.” Id. at 7–8
(citing Klein, Fig. 4C, ¶ 36); see also id. at 8 (“Klein’s display does not
present a representation of a basketball court overlaid with percentage of the
player’s successfully made basketball shots shown at the location of said
basketball passes as claimed.”). Appellant also asserts that “Chipperfield
merely teaches creating a record and report of the number of made and
Appeal 2019-003474
Application 14/688,354

5
missed shots at the simulated positions.” Id. at 10 (citing Chipperfield ¶¶ 79,
87). We agree with Appellant that a sustainable case of obviousness has not
been established.
Klein teaches, with reference to Figure 2C, an embodiment “in which
the shooter or coach can configure display area 204 to display one or more
cells superimposed on the playing field in order to select shot locations.”
Klein ¶ 31 (boldface omitted). Klein teaches:
A display 206 provides the player or coach with information
and control capabilities from the console. Shooting session
indicators including a shots taken display 222, shots made
display area 224, percentage made display 226 and location
display 228 present shooting session statistics to the player or
coach at the end of a shooting session or in real time.
Id. (boldface omitted). In this regard, the Examiner determines that
“[A]ppellant’s assertion that Klein’s display does not present a
representation of a basketball court overlaid with [the] percentage of the
player’s” successfully made shots “is incorrect.” Ans. 14. The Examiner
takes the position that “Klein does teach that[,] in one embodiment, a player
or coach can define a three point shooting cycle by entering numbers of cells
to shoot from, storing the locations in a memory.” Id.; see also id.
(explaining that Klein “is a teaching reference for the use of a processor,
superimposing layers and matrix and not the shape of the basketball court
being displayed”).
Appellant “acknowledges that Kl[ei]n makes reference to use of a
display area 204 which may, at times, illustrate a representation of these
cells” that relate to “a ‘pressure sensitive grid’ that tracks player location on
the court.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Klein Figs. 2A–2I, ¶ 34). Appellant,
however, argues that “nowhere does Kl[ei]n make reference to using the
Appeal 2019-003474
Application 14/688,354

6
display area 204 with a representation of these cells to display summary
shooting statistics information in the manner required by claim 32 (i.e.,
percentage at locations of passes).” Id. at 2–3. We agree with Appellant that
the Examiner does not explain adequately how Klein teaches or suggests a
representation of a basketball court overlaid with the percentage of a
player’s successful shots at pass locations.
The Examiner does not appear to rely on Chipperfield for any
teaching regarding the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 8–10 (presenting
no findings that Chipperfield depicts a representation of a basketball court
overlaid with the percentage of successful shots by a player at pass
locations); Ans. 14 (explaining that “[t]he Chipperfield reference is a
teaching reference and [w]as primarily used to emphasi[ze] the desirability
to automate what was previously achieved manually”). In short, the
Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that either of
the cited references of Klein or Chipperfield teaches or suggests a “visual
matrix, graph, scatter diagram or chart depict[ing] a representation of said
basketball court overlaid with the percentage of the player’s successfully
made basketball shots shown at the location of said basketball passes,” as
recited in claim 32 and as expressly found by the Examiner to be missing in
Sniper. See Final Act. 7.
Moreover, the Examiner has not provided a reason with rational
underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to modify Sniper to include a visual matrix, graph, scatter diagram
or chart that depicts a representation of a basketball court overlaid with the
percentage of successful shots by a player at pass locations. See In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “some articulated reasoning
Appeal 2019-003474
Application 14/688,354

7
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, 419 (2007)). The Examiner’s reasoning articulated in the rejection
explains only why it would have been obvious to provide Sniper with a
processor that receives and stores gathered practice session data. See Final
Act. 10 (reasoning “that the user or coach [would be] able to review the
gathered information in order to determine the training course necessary for
improving a user(s) performance”). The Examiner has not articulated any
modification to Sniper so as to include a visual matrix, graph, scatter
diagram or chart that depicts a representation of a basketball court overlaid
with the percentage of successful shots by a player at pass locations, much
less explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
make such a modification.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 32
and its dependent claims 34–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sniper, Klein, and Chipperfield.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
32, 34–40 103(a) Sniper, Klein,
Chipperfield
32, 34–40

REVERSED