Appeal No. 2002-0152 Page 5
Application No. 09/004,775
would convey the impact forces directly to the support
structure instead of indirectly through the backboard in order
to prevent the rim from breaking away from the backboard
and interrupting the game. However fig 1 of White shows
the attachment means of the rim to the slide slightly below
the slide. Lykens shows a direct connection (11,13, 14, fig
1, fig 5). It would have been obvious to have employed the
attachment position used with the Lykens apparatus and the
Schroeder apparatus to prevent the rotational forces present
in the off set White apparatus and improve the durability of
the apparatus.
After carefully considering the teachings of the AAPA, as illustrated in Figure 2
and described in column 1, lines 51-58, and column 3, line 58, to column 4, line 6, of
the Schroeder patent, and the White and Lykens patents, it is our conclusion that they
would not have been suggestive of appellant’s invention. In particular, while White may
have broadly suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art fastening the rim 22 of
the AAPA directly to the existing support structure through the backboard 20 to
minimize the possibility of the rim being broken off by a player hanging on the rim (see
column 1, lines 62-66, and column 3, lines 5-10), we find nothing in the teachings of
White which would have suggested providing a center bracket as called for in each of
independent claims 1, 7, 12 and 18, connected directly to the slides 58 and having
openings for fastening the rim 22 in the Schroeder AAPA support structure. Even if the
goal mounting member 44 of White could reasonably be considered to be a “slide” as
set forth in each of appellant’s independent claims, a point on which we do not agree
with the examiner, it is not apparent to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007