14520090 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2018)

Ex Parte Gautama

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 13, 2018

14520090 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2018)

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. 14/520,090 10/21/2014 Temujin Gautama 81585262US03 8849 65913 7590 03/15/2018 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXPB.V. 411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 EXAMINER SUTHERS, DOUGLAS JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2018 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): ip. department .u s @ nxp. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TEMUJIN GAUTAMA1 Appeal 2017-002494 Application 14/520,090 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHN F. HORVATH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to “loudspeakers, and particularly, but not exclusively to determining the temperature of a loudspeaker voice coil” (Spec. 1:2-3). 1 Appellant identifies NXP B.V. of Eindhoven, Netherlands, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-002494 Application 14/520,090 Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for determining a temperature of a voice coil of a loudspeaker comprising: calculating an impedance value of the voice coil at a predetermined evaluation frequency greater than 16 kHz; and determining the temperature of the voice coil based on the impedance value. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph) for reciting a function, but failing to recite sufficiently definite structure, material, or acts to perform the recited function (Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 3—6). The Examiner rejected claims 1,10, and 12—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teaching of Huijser (US 2012/0020488 Al; publ. Jan. 26, 2012) (Final Act. 6—8; Ans. 6—9). The Examiner rejected claims 2—9, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Huijser and Caballero (US 2014/0328488 Al; publ. Nov. 6, 2014) (Final Act. 8-11; Ans. 9-12). ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) Appellant’s Appeal Brief provides no response to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Appellant does provide a response in its Reply Brief, but merely states, “[i]n response, Appellant disagrees that these features should be interpreted under this statute,” without providing any argument or reasoning (Reply Br. 1). 2 Appeal 2017-002494 Application 14/520,090 Therefore, we summarily sustain this rejection as no argument has been provided. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c). Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellant contends Huijser does not teach or suggest the claim limitation of calculating a coil impedance value “at a predetermined evaluation frequency greater than 16 kHz” (App. Br. 13). Appellant asserts Huijser’s paragraph 85 states, . . [f]or example, the evaluation frequency can be below the resonant frequency of the loudspeaker ...[,] the evaluation frequency may be chosen at the particular frequency, say at 100 Hertz’” (App. Br. 14) (quoting Huijser para. 85). Thus, Appellant contends, Huijser teaches away from the claimed limitation as it proposes a frequency of 100 Hz or below, “which is opposite to the term ‘16kHz or more’ as claimed” (id.). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans. 13—15). Particularly, we agree that Appellant “has provided no evidence that, if the designer chose the frequency range as per the rejection, the Huijser reference would not work as intended [(teach away)]” (Ans. 14). Further, we agree Appellant has not shown where in Huijser the evaluation frequency/frequency range is restricted (id.). Paragraph 85 of Huijser provides an example, in which the evaluation frequency can be 100 Hz. It does not limit the evaluation frequency to 100 Hz or below, as Appellant contends. We also note paragraph 40 of Huijser states, “the loudspeaker impedance is determined and a temperature ... is accurately measured,” which teaches the claimed “determining the temperature of the voice coil based on the impedance value.” Further, although Appellant cites paragraph 85 as support that Huijser is restricted to a maximum frequency of 100 Hz, 3 Appeal 2017-002494 Application 14/520,090 paragraph 88 of Huijser directly contradicts this assertion. There, Huijser states the “invention can be applied to all types of loudspeakers prone to heating problems. However, the use of an evaluation signal as described is more attractive for loudspeakers with high resonance frequencies, above 400 Hz.” No upper limit is recited. Appellant has also not addressed Caballero cited against claims 2—9, 11, and 15 (App. Br. 11; Ans. 13). In Appellant’s Reply Brief, we are asked to consider arguments regarding the combination of Huijser and Caballero that could have been presented in the Appeal Brief, but were not. In the absence of a showing of good cause, we conclude that the regulations set out in 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37 and 41.41, Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, do not require the Board to consider such belated arguments. For a full discussion of this issue, see Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1476-77 (BPAI2010) (Informative). In light of the broad claim language and arguments provided, we conclude the Examiner has not erred in finding Huijser’s examples of evaluation frequencies are not limited to a certain frequency or frequency range, let alone a low frequency range as Appellant contends. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—15 as obvious over the cited references. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 4 Appeal 2017-002494 Application 14/520,090 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5