Ex Parte Harris

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2011

10846848 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2011)

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.
10/846,848 05/14/2004 Michael Harris Harman.7496 1343
50811 7590 03/29/2011
O''Shea Getz P.C.
1500 MAIN ST. SUITE 912
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01115
EXAMINER
ENSEY, BRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL HARRIS
____________________

Appeal 2009-007932
Application 10/846,8481
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MARC S. HOFF and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH.
Appeal 2009-007932
Application 10/846,848

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-15, 17-19, 24, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention concerns a centering system for loudspeakers.
Identical centering spiders are positioned back-to-back at an axial distance
from each other. The arrangement improves harmonic distortion, evens out
the difference in positive to negative excursion nonlinearities, and reduces
the DC bias due to suspension creep and component aging effect (Spec. 2).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A loudspeaker comprising:
a frame;
a diaphragm disposed in the frame;
a motor system for the diaphragm including a magnet system
attached to the frame and a voice coil attached to the diaphragm; and
a centering system in the frame for one of the diaphragm and
the voice coil system and to provide support therefore, the centering
system including at least two spiders arranged back-to-back in axial
distance from each other, where a first one of the spiders is connected
at one end directly to the diaphragm and at another end to a spacer
ring affixed to the frame, where a second one of the spiders is
connected at one end to the voice coil and at another end to the spacer
ring, where the spacer ring is attached to the frame.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Seabert US 2,329,560 Sep. 14, 1943
Liebscher US 3,767,004 Oct. 23, 1973

Appeal 2009-007932
Application 10/846,848

3
Borwick, Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook, Reed Educational and
Professional Publishing, Third Edition, 2001, pp. 53-71, 494-501.

Claims 1, 5, 12, 15, 17, 19, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Liebscher.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Liebscher in view of Seabert.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liebscher in view of Borwick.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Oct. 2, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 30,
2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 13, 2008) for their
respective details.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that because the two spiders taught in Liebscher are
both connected to the voice coil, Liebscher does not teach a spider
“connected at one end directly to the diaphragm” as claim 1 requires (App.
Br. 7). The Examiner finds that Liebscher teaches spider 27 connected to
diaphragm 15 (Ans. 4).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue:
Does Liebscher teach a centering system including a first spider
connected at one end directly to the diaphragm?

Appeal 2009-007932
Application 10/846,848

4
FINDING OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Liebscher
1. Liebscher illustrates “coaxial support 27” connected to diaphragm
15 at the point where both parts meet voice coil 25 (Figure 1).

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1, 5, 12, 15, 17, 19, 24, AND 25
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, summarized supra,
that Liebscher does not teach a spider connected at one end directly to the
diaphragm (App. Br. 7). We concur with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 4)
that Liebscher Figure 1 illustrates “coaxial support 27” connected to
diaphragm 15 at the point where both parts meet voice coil 25 (FF 1).
Similarly unpersuasive is Appellant’s Reply Brief argument that support 27
is not connected to diaphragm 15 because Liebscher’s disclosure does not
explicitly state that the two parts are connected (Reply Br. 2, 3). Given the
Appeal 2009-007932
Application 10/846,848

5
teaching clearly present in Figure 1, no such written disclosure is necessary
to support the Examiner’s finding of anticipation.
Because we find that Liebscher teaches all the elements of
representative claim 1, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 1, 5, 12, 15, 17, 19, 24, and 25 under § 102 as being anticipated by
Liebscher, and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
CLAIMS 2-4, 7, 8, 13, 14, AND 18
As noted supra, we affirm the rejection of independent claim 1.
Appellant relies only on the arguments made for the patentability of claim 1
to support the patentability of these claims. Because we find that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1, then, we will sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 2-4, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 18, for the same reasons expressed
in affirming the § 102 rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
Liebscher teaches a centering system including a first spider
connected at one end directly to the diaphragm.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-15, 17-19, 24, and 25
is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-007932
Application 10/846,848

6
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

kis