Ex Parte Graber

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

12460686 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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.
12/460,686 07/23/2009 Curtis E. Graber WAC0003.US 5855
41863 7590
TAYLOR IP, P.C.
P.O. Box 560
142. S Main Street
A villa, IN 46710
12/15/2016 EXAMINER
PRITCHARD, JASMINE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2016 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 CURTIS E. GRABER
Appeal 2015-007753
Application 12/460,686
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—10, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies himself as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-007753
Application 12/460,686
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant describes the disclosed and claimed invention as follows:
A blended acoustic folded horn and reflector provides for
throughput of higher frequency bands without giving rise to
standing waves. The horn includes a parabolic region intersected
by a first direct radiant axis centered on the throat. The parabolic
region is shaped and oriented to define a reflected radiant axis
through the mouth for frequency components of the acoustic
input above a cut-off frequency. The parabolic region operates
to focus sound in the upper portion of the operational frequency
range of the loudspeaker and to reflect the resulting focused
sound beam along a second radiant axis through the mouth of the
folded horn.
Abstract.2
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitations emphasized)'.
1. A loudspeaker system, comprising:
a horn having a channel, a fold and a throat and a mouth
with a continuous interior surface characterized by a constant
flare rate from the mouth to the throat;
an acoustic source located in the throat operating over a
frequency range from bass frequencies to at least the mid range
of human hearing;
a parabolic reflector focusing region located within the
fold of the horn to intersect an incident radiant axis through the
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Feb. 11, 2014 (“Final
Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Aug. 14, 2014 (“App. Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer mailed June 25, 2015 (“Ans.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief
filed Aug. 21, 2015 (“Reply Br.”); and, the original Specification filed
July 23,2009 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2015-007753
Application 12/460,686
throat and oriented to define a radiant axis for reflected sound
through the mouth; and
the parabolic reflector being located within the fold in a
first half of the channel.
Rejections3 on Appeal
Claims 1—5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Noselli et al. (US 2004/0245043 Al; published Dec. 9,
2004) (“Noselli”). Final Act. 5-9.
Claims 6—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Delort (US 2,815,087; issued Dec. 3, 1957).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Delort in view of Noselli.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1—5 and 10 under § 103(a)
Claims 1—5
Regarding claim 1, Appellant contends that Noselli does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations. App. Br. 11—12. In particular, Appellant
argues that the reflecting portion of Noselli is arranged outside of the mouth
of the device and, even assuming it is located within the mouth of the
device, “the reflecting portion is definitely located in the last half of the
channel not in the first half of the channel as claimed by Appellant.” Id.
3 Although claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
for insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the parabolic reflector,”
this rejection was overcome by Appellant’s amendment to claim 10 after the
final rejection. See Amendment dated May 12, 2014; Advisory Action dated
June 4, 2014.
3
Appeal 2015-007753
Application 12/460,686
Appellant also argues that the illustrations of Noselli show that the reflection
occurs immediately after the diffraction slot 12, so it is only appropriate to
understand the recitations of the Abstract and Claim 1 of Noselli, which are
cited and relied on by the Examiner, “to mean that the reflection would take
place immediately before or after the diffraction slot 12.” Reply Br. 1—2.
Appellant further argues the Examiner’s finding that Noselli teaches the
disputed limitations of claim 1 is unsupported because “[a]ll of the
illustrations of Noselli show either a sharp fold, which cannot be parabolic,
or no fold with a reflector after the throat slot 12.” Id. at 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has
erred. First, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Noselli teaches, at least
in Figure 3D, a parabolic reflector being located within the fold. See Final
Act. 6. Indeed, Appellant acknowledges “the parabolic reflection of Fig.
3D” in connection with the argument that the reflection shown in the figure
occurs after the diffraction slot and in the mouth 13 of the device. See Reply
Br. 2. Second, the Examiner concludes, and Appellant agrees, that the
claimed “parabolic reflector being located within the fold in a first half of
the channel” means that the parabolic reflector would be located in the half
of the channel that is closer in proximity to the transducer 20, not the half
that is closer in proximity to the mouth 16. Ans. 5—6 (citing Spec. 120,4
Fig. 2); Reply Br. 1 (“the Examiner has correctly understood where the first
half of the channel is located in Appellant’s invention”). We agree with the
Examiner and Appellant and conclude that this interpretation is the broadest
4 The Examiner mistakenly refers to paragraph 20 of the Specification,
rather than paragraph 18, which contains the disclosure cited by the
Examiner.
4
Appeal 2015-007753
Application 12/460,686
reasonable interpretation of the phrase “parabolic reflector being located
within the fold in a first half of the channel” based on the language of the
claim and the Specification.
Third, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Noselli teaches “a
waveguide loudspeaker with adjustable controlled dispersion which
comprises a duct formed by flat, concave or convex walls round a diffraction
throat, and which finishes in a mouth and where reflection can occur before
or after the diffraction throat.” Ans. 6—7 (citing Noselli Abstract, Claim 1).
Based on this teaching, the Examiner finds, and we agree, when the
reflection occurs before the diffraction throat with a parabolic reflector in the
fold, Noselli teaches that “the parabolic reflector is located within the fold in
a first half of the channel because that is the half of the channel that is closer
to the transducer than to the mouth.” Id. at 7. Thus, even though Appellants
correctly argue that the drawings of Noselli do not explicitly show the
parabolic reflector in a first half of the channel, the teachings of Noselli are
broad and, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the invention of claim 1
based on the disclosure of Noselli. See Final Act. 6.
For these reasons, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in (1) finding Noselli teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1 or (2) concluding that Noselli
renders the subject matter of claim 1 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
dependent claims 2—5, which are not argued separately.
Claim 10
5
Appeal 2015-007753
Application 12/460,686
Appellant argues Noselli does not teach or suggest the parabolic
reflector focusing region “being sized to be substantially invisible at sound
frequencies below 300 Hz,” as recited in claim 10.5 App. Br. 12—13. The
Examiner finds that Noselli teaches “designing the parabolic reflector of the
waveguide horn to be substantially invisible at sound frequencies below 500
Hz.” Ans. 7—9. The Examiner also finds that “Noselli discloses options to
design and construct his waveguide” (see id. 8—9 citing Noselli ]Hf 15,33,
39), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art skill in
the art to design the parabolic reflector of the waveguide horn to be
substantially invisible below 300 Hz. Id. at 9 (“designing the parabolic
reflector ... to be substantially invisible at sound frequencies below 500 Hz
would require simple experimentation and design tweaks”). Appellant does
not provide persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s
findings. Thus, for the reasons stated by the Examiner and based on a
preponderance of the evidence, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the
Examiner’s findings that Noselli teaches or suggests the disputed limitation
of claim 10.
Rejection of Claims 6—8 under § 102(b)
Appellant contends Delort does not teach or disclose “a reflector
within the fold including a sound focusing element exposed to the both the
first and second ends for reflecting sound at frequencies above the
5 Appellant also makes other arguments regarding the parabolic reflector
focusing region limitations of claim 10, but they are not persuasive for the
reasons discussed regarding claim 1 and because the argument that the
reflecting portion is not in the first half of the channel is not commensurate
with the scope of claim 10.
6
Appeal 2015-007753
Application 12/460,686
threshold frequency introduced to the first end in a beam through the second
end, the sound focusing element being positioned in a first half of the tube,”
as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 14. In particular, Appellant argues “[t]he
cited prior art simply fails to disclose the sound focusing element as claimed
by Appellant, particularly the location of the sound focusing element.” Id.',
Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds Delort discloses “a reflector (25 — rear
panel) located within the fold.” Ans. 10 (citing Delort Figure 2). The
Examiner also finds the claimed ‘“sound focusing element’ can be observed
in figure 2 at #32 — parabolic reflector section.” Id. at 10—11. The Examiner
also finds the limitation “of a reflector comprising a tube open at first and
second ends is found in Delort in figures 1-9 and portions 25 — rear panel,
30 — reflecting member, 26 and 27 — side walls, 33 — throat and 33 ’ — mouth
and by noticing the sound paths “a ” and “b. ’ ” Id. at 11.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding Delort
anticipates claim 6. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element
as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in
a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, we agree with Appellant the Examiner
has not shown that Delort discloses the “sound focusing element” of claim 6
because the parabolic reflector section 32 identified by the Examiner is not
included in the reflector 25 and is not “exposed to the both the first and
second ends for reflecting sound at frequencies above the threshold
frequency introduced to the first end in a beam through the second end,” as
recited in the disputed limitation of claim 6. Thus, the Examiner has not
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Delort discloses the disputed
limitation of claim 6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
7
Appeal 2015-007753
Application 12/460,686
rejection of claim 6, as well as dependent claims 7—8, which are not
separately argued.
Rejection of Claim 9 under § 103(a)
Claim 9 recites “the reflector including a parabolic reflector region
located on the interior surface toward an outside of the fold.” See App. Br.
19 (Claims Appx.). Appellant argues claim 9 depends from claim 6 and is in
condition for allowance for the same reasons argued with respect to claim 6.
App. Br. 15. We note, however, that claim 9 is rejected over the
combination of Delort and Noselli. Final Act. 12. Although we agree with
Appellant, as discussed supra regarding claim 6, that Delort does not
disclose the “sound focusing element” of claim 6, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, as discussed supra regarding claim 1, that Noselli teaches a
parabolic reflector for the purpose of controlling and adjusting sound waves,
which is located in the first half of the tube. Id. (citing Noselli 130, Fig. 3D
(14’ - wall), claims 1, 12). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to include a parabolic reflector as shown in Noselli, in the reflector
region of Delort for the purpose of controlling and adjusting sound waves.”
Final Act. 12. Thus, we find Noselli cures the deficiencies of Delort because
Noselli teaches a parabolic reflector for controlling and adjusting sound
waves, which, when combined with the reflector of Delort, constitutes the
“sound focusing element” positioned in the first half of the tube, as recited in
claim 6, and “a parabolic reflector region located on the interior surface [of
the reflector] toward an outside of the fold,” as recited in claim 9. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
8
Appeal 2015-007753
Application 12/460,686
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 9, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6—8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
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-IN-PART
9