Ex Parte Bourgoin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

13057246 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

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.
13/057,246 02/02/2011 Gilles Bourgoin 4005/0420PUS1 1096
60601 7590 02/26/2016
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
EXAMINER
BLAIR, KILE O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GILLES BOURGOIN
____________

Appeal 2014-004089
Application 13/057,246
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed August 16, 2013
(“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed February 18, 2014 (“Reply Br.”);
the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 17, 2013 (“Ans.”); and the Final
Office Action mailed February 19, 2013 (“Final Act.”).
2 Appellant identifies Sagemcom Broadband SAS as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-004089
Application 13/057,246
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 5 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below
(with disputed limitations in italics and some formatting added):
1. A wireless telephone handset comprising

a housing enclosing an acoustic processing unit associated with
a microphone and an electromagnetic loudspeaker,
wherein the loudspeaker is mounted on a wall of an enclosure
that extends behind the loudspeaker and that includes at least one vent
having dimensions adapted to co-operate with the enclosure to form a
Helmholtz resonator, and
wherein said at least one vent opens out into a compartment for
receiving an electrical power supply battery of the handset.

App. Br. 15 (Claim App.).
References
Eaton US 2004/0170291 A1 Sept. 2, 2004
Yang US 2007/0154053 A1 July 5, 2007

Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eaton and Yang. Ans. 2–4; Final Act. 2–4.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner erred. See App. Br. 9–13; Reply Br. 1–3. We are
not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant first argues there is no motivation in Eaton to use a
“Helmholtz resonator,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. In
Appeal 2014-004089
Application 13/057,246
3
particular, Appellant enumerates four solutions to the technical problem of
improving acoustical performance of a wireless telephone at low frequency.
Appellant asserts Eaton uses one of these solutions, modification of the
dimensions of the front volume and of the front tuning channel. App. Br. 9
(citing Eaton ¶ 18). Appellant then alleges that because Eaton uses one
solution, there is no motivation to use Appellant’s fourth enumerated
solution, use of a Helmholtz resonator. Id.
The Examiner finds that even though Eaton does not use the term
Helmholtz resonator, Eaton teaches a mixing volume as a structure
understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to be a Helmholtz resonator.
Ans. 6 (citing Eaton ¶¶ 24–29, Fig. 4). We agree with the Examiner because
Eaton teaches minimizing low frequency roll-off of the acoustic signal in the
mixing volume:
Acoustic modeling may be used to determine the exact
size, shape, and dimensions of the front volume tuning channel
412 to minimize frequency roll-off past 1 kHz (so that the
minimum deviation in level is 12 dB or less between 1 and 4
kHz) while maximizing sensitivity between 3 and 4 kHz. The
front volume tuning channel 412 should provide access to the
mixing volume 418 with very little internal restriction of the
acoustical signal.

Eaton ¶ 26.
Additionally, we interpret Appellant’s argument that there is no
motivation in Eaton to use a Helmholtz resonator to be based on a premise
that a person skilled in the art is limited to solely one solution to the
technical problem of improving acoustical performance of a wireless
telephone at low frequency. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. However,
[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
Appeal 2014-004089
Application 13/057,246
4
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this
leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Thus, a person of
ordinary skill may use all the solutions available to solve a technical
problem. Appellant further fails to rebut the Examiner’s finding regarding
motivation. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. We determine the Examiner has
provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for the proposed
combination, finding an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been
motivated to use a Helmholtz resonator in Eaton to improve voice quality in
a mobile phone. Final Act. 3 (citing Yang ¶ 6).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Appellant then argues Eaton does not teach “wherein said at least one
vent opens out into a compartment for receiving an electrical power supply
battery of the handset,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant further contends the combination of Eaton and Yang would result
in a vent opening to the outside at the rear of the mobile device. App. Br.
10. Appellant then alleges Yang does not teach a battery compartment.
Reply Br. 2. Appellant moreover asserts it is not obvious to use the battery
compartment of a wireless handset as a Helmholtz resonator because the
empty volume is very small. Id. at 2–3. Appellant next contends those
skilled in the art would define the Helmholtz resonator first and then
integrate it in the handset rather than use empty volume in a separate
compartment committed to a separate application. Id. at 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds
Yang teaches a resonance chamber in a phone in which the battery is
Appeal 2014-004089
Application 13/057,246
5
located. Final Act. 3 (citing Yang ¶¶ 11, 14). The Examiner further notes
that this resonance chamber is similar to the compartment in Eaton. Final
Act. 3 (citing Eaton Fig. 4). The Examiner further reasons that one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the compartment 418 in Eaton
is where the battery could be located because it has an unidentified part
adjacent to the back cover 104 that can be a lid to accommodate the
placement of a battery in the compartment 418. Ans. 5 (citing Eaton Figs. 1,
4). We agree with the Examiner that Eaton teaches a battery compartment
because “one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the
[reference’s] description of the invention with his own knowledge to make
the claimed invention.” In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The Examiner additionally points out that “it is well known in the mobile
phone art that the battery can be located in an opening in the lower half of
the mobile device and is also a design choice.” Final Act. 3.
Because we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to claims 2–9, Appellant has not presented additional
substantive, persuasive arguments. See App. Br. 10–13. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9.
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).

Appeal 2014-004089
Application 13/057,246
6
AFFIRMED