Charles C. Sciandra

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 18, 2019

15660152 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2019)

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.
15/660,152 07/26/2017 Charles C. Sciandra KNJP102BUS 2560
24041 7590 07/18/2019
SIMPSON & SIMPSON, PLLC
5555 MAIN STREET
WILLIAMSVILLE, NY 14221-5406
EXAMINER
GRAHAM, MARK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2019 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):
patentEFS@idealawyers.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARLES C. SCIANDRA
____________

Appeal 2019-0007711
Application 15/660,1522
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed June 18, 2018), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sept. 6, 2018), and the Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Apr. 24, 2018).
2 According to Appellant, “[t]he real party in interest is Charles C. Sciandra”
and “[t]he subject invention and patent application has been assigned to
Wild Sales, LLC D/B/A Wild Sports.” Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000771
Application 15/660,152

2
BACKGROUND
“The disclosure relates generally to games, and more specifically, to
disc throwing games which can be played in the dark and/or in a swimming
pool.” Spec. ¶ 2.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A target for a disc throwing game, comprising:
a receptacle including:
an open top;
an open bottom connected to the open top;
at least one aperture arranged between the open top
and the open bottom;
a first reflective member arranged elevationally
below the at least one aperture; and,
a second reflective member arranged proximate the
open top; and,
an illumination means securable only to an inside surface
of the receptacle a distance from the at least one aperture, the
illumination means operatively arranged to transmit light
through the at least one aperture and the open top.
Br. 48.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–8 and 11–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sciandra3 in view of Segretto4 and Junemann.5

3 Sciandra et al., US 5,382,028, iss. Jan. 17, 1995.
4 Segretto et al., US 7,854,528 B2, iss. Dec. 21, 2010.
5 Junemann, US 5,354,067, iss. Oct. 11, 1994.
Appeal 2019-000771
Application 15/660,152

3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 9, 10, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sciandra in view of Segretto, Junemann, and Shea.6
DISCUSSION
Obviousness over Sciandra, Segretto, and Junemann
Claims 1–8, 12–14, and 16.
With respect to this rejection, Appellant does not provide separate
arguments as to the rejection of dependent claims 2–8, 12–14, and 16.
Accordingly, those claims stand or fall with independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Sciandra discloses a
target as claimed, except that Sciandra does not disclose an illumination
means or reflective members. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that
Segretto teaches the use of an illumination means and reflective member
“secured to an inner surface only of a target receptacle wall proximate the
open top end.” Id. The Examiner also finds that Junemann teaches that “it
is also known to provide a light source near the bottom end of such devices.”
Id. The Examiner further finds and determines:
Collectively Segretto and Junemann teach that light sources may
be provided at the top and bottom of such devices and that
reflectors may be used to enhance the light. As such it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used
lights enhanced by reflectors at both the top and bottom of
Sciandra’s device to give a particular lighting effect for play in
low light conditions
Id. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner further explains:
Thus [based on the teachings of Segretto and Junemann] it
is known or obvious in the art to provide a light source both just
below the open top of, and at the bottom of, a receptacle target.

6 Shea, US 2013/0093139 A1, pub. Apr. 18, 2013.
Appeal 2019-000771
Application 15/660,152

4
Given that these teachings are known in the art for providing
light to a target receptacle it would have been obvious to one
wishing to illuminate Sciandra’s target receptacle for play in low
light conditions or for effect, to apply them to Sciandra’s target
receptacle. In applying them to Sciandra’s target receptacle one
would have positioned a reflective member and illumination
source near the top of the receptacle and at the bottom of the
receptacle which would have arranged them elevationally below
the aperture and proximate the open top as claim 1 requires.
Ans. 7.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion with
respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 6–10. As
discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection.
Appellant first argues that “Segretto does not disclose the arrangement
of the reflective members and the illumination means as is claimed in the
instant invention.” Br. 17. Appellant asserts that if “Segretto is combined
with Sciandra, Segretto teaches that the entire inner surface be covered with
a reflective foil tape. Such a combination would only provide that a single
continuous reflective member coats the entire inner wall of Sciandra.” Id.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The rejection does not rely on a
bodily incorporation of Segretto’s illumination and reflective means into
Sciandra. See Ans. 9. Rather, the Examiner relies on Segretto as teaching
that it was known to provide illumination means and reflective members in a
receptacle secured to an inner surface near a top opening. Thus, we are not
persuaded of error by the fact that Segretto does not disclose the specific
arrangement of reflective members and illumination means claimed.
Second, Appellant argues that “Segretto does not disclose an
illumination means securable only to an inside surface of the receptacle.”
Br. 18. However, we agree with the Examiner that Segretto discloses that
Appeal 2019-000771
Application 15/660,152

5
the illumination means 20 is only attached to the inside surface of the device
via mounting extensions 24. See Segretto Figs. 2, 3; col. 2, ll. 48–50.
Appellant does not explain adequately why this is not the case.
Third, Appellant argues that “Junemann does not disclose an
illumination means securable only to an inside surface of the receptacle”
because the light assembly is arranged on a bulb support. Br. 18. However,
Appellant fails to explain adequately why Junemann’s bulb attached to a
bulb support only on the interior of the device may not be considered an
illumination means attached only to the inside surface of the receptacle. As
the Examiner explains, the Junemann’s light source “is only secured to an
inside surface of the receptacle above the bottom of the receptacle [and i]t is
not secured to any surface outside of the receptacle.” Ans. 8 (citing
Junemann Fig. 6).
Fourth, Appellant argues that “the specific design of the instant
invention . . . is required so that the target can be ‘broken down’ and stored.”
Br. 18. We agree with the Examiner that this argument is unpersuasive
because the claim does not include any limitations regarding a requirement
that the device can be broken down and stored. Ans. 9.
Finally, Appellant argues that, in light of the above arguments, “there
is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Sciandra” to include an
illumination means or reflective members as claimed and that proposed
modification “must have been derived from the present application,” i.e., by
impermissible hindsight. Br. 19. We are not persuaded. Although the art of
record does not disclose the specific claimed arrangement of illumination
means and reflective members in a receptacle, the Examiner has set forth
sufficient reasoning to support the conclusion that the claimed arrangement
Appeal 2019-000771
Application 15/660,152

6
would have been obvious. In particular, the Examiner determined, based on
the teachings of Segretto and Junemann, that it would have been obvious to
modify Sciandra to include an illumination means and reflective members
arranged as claimed in order to effectively illuminate the device for play in
low light conditions. Ans. 7. The Examiner also determined that the
specific location of the illuminating means and reflective members is a
matter of design choice. Id. at 7–8. Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s reasoning or otherwise show how the rejection is based on
knowledge obtained only from Appellant’s disclosure.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error with respect to
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 2–8, 12–14, and 16, which fall with claim 1.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further requires that “the
illumination means comprises a light source securable to the inside surface
of the receptacle, wherein the light source is arranged on the first reflective
member.” Br. 49. The Examiner finds that Segretto teaches “[a] light 30
[that] is arranged on reflective member 34 by means of element 32.”
Ans. 10.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11
because “none of the cited references disclose a light source secured to the
inside surface of the receptacle on a reflective member.” Br. 25. Appellant
asserts that Segretto’s LEDs 30 are arranged on the circuit board and not on
the outer wall or reflective foil tape of the illumination apparatus. We are
not persuaded of error. Segretto teaches an illumination apparatus 20 that
includes a circuit board with LEDs 30 and a reflective wall 22b. See
Appeal 2019-000771
Application 15/660,152

7
Segretto col. 1, l. 53–col. 2, l. 10 Segretto depicts that the circuit board 32
is attached to the wall 22b. Id. at Fig. 4. We note that claim 11 does not
require that the light source is directly connected to the reflective member
and only broadly requires that it is “arranged on” the reflective member.
Without further explanation from Appellant, we agree with the Examiner
that Segretto’s LEDs 30 are indirectly arranged on the reflective member by
means of element 32. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and further requires that “the first
reflective member is disposed proximate to and circumscribing the light
source.” Br. 50. Appellant argues that the references do not disclose a
reflective member circumscribing the light source and that Segretto’s LEDs
“are circumscribed by [the] circuit board (32) and not reflective foil tape
(34).” Id. at 30. However, we agree with the Examiner that because the
Segretto’s reflective surface extends around the entire wall 22b of the
illumination apparatus, the reflective surface surrounds, i.e., circumscribes,
Segretto’s LEDs. See Segretto Figs. 3, 4. Thus, we also sustain the rejection
of claim 15.
Obviousness over Sciandra, Segretto, Junemann, and Shea
Claims 9, 10, and 17–19
Appellant does not present separate arguments regarding the rejection
of claims 9, 10, and 17–19, each of which ultimately depends from
independent claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 17–19.
Appeal 2019-000771
Application 15/660,152

8
Claim 20
With respect to independent claim 20, Appellant relies on
substantially the same argument presented above with respect to the
rejection of claims 1 and 15. See Br. 31–46. We are not persuaded of error
in the rejection of claim 20 by these arguments for the reasons discussed
above with respect to claims 1 and 15. Accordingly, we also sustain the
rejection of claim 20.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED