2020000161 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2021)

Bose Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 28, 2021

2020000161 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2021)

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. 15/471,602 03/28/2017 Peter C. Santoro PR-17-073-US 4129 99412 7590 04/28/2021 Dingman IP Law, PC/Bose Corporation 114 Turnpike Road , Suite 108 Westborough, MA 01581 EXAMINER ROBINSON, RYAN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2653 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/28/2021 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): brian@dingmaniplaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com lyn@dingmaniplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PETER C. SANTORO, and ROBERT A. WARDEN1 ____________________ Appeal 2020-000161 Application 15/471,602 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Bose Corporation., is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000161 Application 15/471,602 2 INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to a loudspeaker with a housing, a diaphragm, and grill which covers the diaphragm. Abstract. The grill is removably secured to the loudspeaker housing magnetically. See Specification ¶¶ 17, 20. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A loudspeaker, comprising: a housing; a movable diaphragm within the housing for creating sound waves; and a grill magnetically secured to the loudspeaker which covers the diaphragm, wherein at least a substantial portion of a perimeter of the grill has a peripheral region which is folded back on itself by an angle greater than about 95 degrees. Appeal Br. 5 (Claims Appendix). EXAMINER’S REJECTION2 The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over Cassity (US 5,322,979, issued June 21, 1994) and Belanger (US 8,620,016 B2, issued December 31, 2013). Final Act. 3–10. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 2, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed January 22, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 31, 2019 (“Answer”). Appeal 2020-000161 Application 15/471,602 3 Appellant raises the same arguments for all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 3–4. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding a skilled artisan would have combined Belanger’s teaching of using magnets to secure a speaker grille with Cassity’s loudspeaker. Id. at 3. Appellant argues that the speaker cover (item 18) in Cassity is permanently secured to the frame body (item 16) and as such does not contemplate the cover can be removed. Id. Further, Appellant argues that in Cassity the cover (item 18) can be metal or a cloth-like material and if the cloth-like material is used with a plastic frame (item 16), a magnetic attachment mechanism would not work. Id. Finally, Appellant argues that Cassity teaches holding the frame structure and cover on the loudspeaker using a frictional engagement mechanism and thus has no need to magnetically secure the frame body to the loudspeaker. Id. at 3–4 (citing Cassity Fig. 6, col. 4, ll. 17–22, col 5, ll. 13–23). The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant’s arguments on page 12 of the Answer. The Examiner states that Appellant’s argument that Cassity’s speaker cover (item 18) is permanently secured to the frame body (item 16) is not persuasive, as the frame body does not correspond to the claimed loudspeaker housing; rather, the cover corresponds to the claimed grill, which is attached to the housing (item 12) via the frame body with a press-fit-arrangement. Answer 12 (citing Cassity col. 4, ll. 15–22). The Examiner finds that Belanger teaches an improved speaker grill attachment mechanism which uses magnets to attach the grill and that the use of Belanger’s attachment mechanism to Cassity is merely applying a known technique and within the capability of the skilled artisan. Id. at 12–13. Appeal 2020-000161 Application 15/471,602 4 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 and the response to Appellant’s arguments in the Answer; we concur with the Examiner’s findings. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in concluding a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Cassity and Belanger. Specifically, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that Cassity teaches a speaker grill cover (item 18) which is secured via frame (item 16) to, and removable from, a housing (item 12) with a diaphragm for creating sound waves. Final Act. 3; Answer 12 see also Cassity Figure 1, col. 2, l. 65–col. 3, l.2. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument regarding the connection between the cover and frame in Cassity does not address the Examiner’s findings regarding the connection between the cover and the housing. Further, we concur with the Examiner that Belanger teaches using an improved arrangement for mounting a speaker cover (or grill) to a speaker housing using magnets. Final Act. 3; see Belanger Abstract, Figs. 3, 5, col. 4, ll. 9– 20. Appellant’s argument that Cassity’s cover can be made of cloth and the frame made of plastic, which would not work with magnets, is not persuasive. See Appeal Br. 3. Belanger also teaches the grill (speaker cover) can be made of plastic or cloth, and its flange (item 108 similar to Cassity’s frame (item 16)) can be made of plastic but uses magnet inserts (or slugs) in the plastic components to provide the magnetic attachment between components. See Belanger, Fig. 3, col. 3, l. 52–col. 4, l. 8. Further, Appellant’s argument that Cassity already teaches a mechanism to attach the speaker grill to the housing and thus there is no need to magnetically secure the grill is similarly not persuasive. Appeal Br. 3–4. As identified by the Examiner, using Belanger’s magnetic attachment is merely the applying a Appeal 2020-000161 Application 15/471,602 5 known technique to Cassity’s speaker. Answer 12–13. Further, we note that Cassity’s attachment mechanism is a friction fit (see Cassity col 4, ll. 17–22) and Belanger identifies that the magnetic attachment is an improvement to friction fit speaker grill attachment mechanisms as the force of attachment does not diminish with repeated removal of the grill. See Belanger col. 1, ll. 43–54. Thus, Belanger provides a motivation to modify Cassity’s device. As such, we find that there are several reasons a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Cassity and Belanger and are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of the references. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2 through 20 similarly rejected and argued as a group with claim 1. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103 Cassity, Belanger 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2017). AFFIRMED