13075598 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

Ex Parte Kawka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 22, 2016

13075598 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/075,598 71016 7590 Bose Corporation Patent Group FILING DATE 03/30/2011 09/26/2016 Mountain Road, MS 3B 1 Framingham, MA 01701 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR MarekKawka 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. R-10-057-US 2016 EXAMINER TATESURE, VINCENT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1786 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2016 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): docket@bose.com designs@bose.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAREK KA WKA, YANG LIU, and WEIDONG ZHU1 Appeal2015-000057 Application 13/075,598 Technology Center 1700 Before CHUNG K. PAK, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and A VEL YN M, ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision2 finally rejecting claims 10-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-22, and 24. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 The real party in interest is said to be Bose Corporation. Appeal Brief filed May 19, 2014 ("App. Br.") at 2. 2 Final Action entered December 18, 2013 ("Final Act.") at 2-5 and the Examiner's Answer entered July 21, 2014 ("Ans.") at 2-5. 3 According to Appellants, claims 1-9, 13, 15, 18, 23, and 25 are still pending, but were withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. App. Br. 2. Appeal2015-000057 Application 13/075,598 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal is directed to "suspensions for moving parts of electroacoustical transducers." Spec. i-fl. Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in illustrative claim 10, 4 which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (with disputed limitations in italicized form): 10. A suspension element for an acoustic driver, comprising: a fabric formed from a monofilament polymer fiber, woven so that the fibers are not fused at the intersections of the fibers. App. Br. 10, Claims Appendix. The Examiner maintains, and Appellants seek review of, the rejection of claims 10-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as unpatentable over Maekawa (US 2005/0254682 Al published in the name ofMaekawa et al. on November 17, 2005) in view of Okazaki (US 5,878,150 issued to Okazaki et al. on March 2, 1999). Compare Final Act. 2-5 and Ans. 2-5 with App. Br. 3. DISCUSSION Upon consideration of the evidence on this appeal record in light of the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we concur with Appellants that a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's determination that the applied prior art would have rendered the subject matter recited in claims 10-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-22, and 24 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). In particular, the Examiner does not demonstrate that the collective teachings of Maekawa and Okazaki would have suggested "a suspension element for an acoustic driver, comprising a fabric 4 Claim 10 is the broadest claim on appeal. Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we limit our discussion to claim 10. 2 Appeal2015-000057 Application 13/075,598 formed from a monofilament polymer, woven so that the fibers are not fused at the intersections of the fibers" as recited in claim 10. Final Act. 2-3. As explained by Appellants, Okazaki teaches forming a damper for a loud speaker that corresponds to the recited suspension element, which is formed of a fabric made of polymer fibers that are fused at the intersections of the fibers. App. Br. 5-6; see, e.g., Okazaki, col. 5, 11. 27-30 and col. 6, 11. 17-22. In the words of Okazaki (col. 10, 11. 24-58): During the molding process, the sheath material [of core-sheath type conjugated fibers] functioning as an excipient is fused and then solidified so as to bond together the intersections of the fibers of the fabric or knitted cloth constituting the substrate and to cover the entire surface of the fibers. As a result, even if the molded damper is subjected to a long-time use so as to the repeatedly deformed through flexure and bending, substantially no peeling occurs at interfaces between the core material and the sheath material, nor is the sheath material ripped. Therefore, the bonds at the intersections of the fibers constituting the fabric are prevented from being destroyed, and consequently the reduction in the stiffness of the entire damper is prevented. Thus, a loud speaker incorporating the damper of the present invention is not liable to excessive deterioration in its characteristics through use of over a long time . . . . Moreover, the sheath material, which is flexible enough not be ripped due to deformation through flexure and bending, is fused and then solidified so as to cover the entire surface of the fibers during the molding process. As a result, moisture is prevented from entering interspaces between fibers and thereby causing the molded damper to be deformed so as to unfavorably affect the performance of the loud speaker. [(Emphasis added.)] Although the Examiner refers to paragraph 57 of Maekawa as teaching unfused fibers constituting a fabric that is useful as a damper or suspension element, Maekawa does not teach or suggest that the damper taught by Okazaki be formed by a polymeric fabric having no bonds at the intersections of the polymer fibers. 3 Appeal2015-000057 Application 13/075,598 Ans. 4-5. In particular, Maekawa, at paragraph 57, teaches that: Since the respective metal wires I la and I lb [constituting a metal fabric damper 1] are not fixed to each other, the damper 1 has the elasticity to some extent. This enables the respective metal wires 11 a and 11 b to displace in accordance with the magnitude of the vibration of the diaphragm and the like at the time of driving the speaker device. Thus, even when a force is partially applied to the damper 1 at the time of driving the speaker device, the respective metal wires 11 a and 11 b of the elastic part 11 respectively displace in constant directions to scatter such a force, and therefore, partial bending or cut can be prevented from occurring to the elastic part 11. In other words, Maekawa teaches that metal wires constituting a metal fabric damper should not be fixed or bonded at their intersections to prevent partial bending or cut from occurring to the elastic portion of the damper. Id. However, on this record, the Examiner does not show the polymeric fabric damper taught by Okazaki suffers from the partial cutting and bending problem associated with the metal wires of the metal fabric taught by Maekawa. Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2-5. Nor does the Examiner identify any teaching in l\1aekav,ra5 that would have suggested 5 The Examiner also refers to paragraph 5 of Maekawa, which refers to a known damper made of aramido fiber with high durability. Ans. 3. One example of such damper, according to paragraph 8 of Maekawa, is described in Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open under No. 2000-159835. However, the Examiner does not show that such known damper is in the form of a fabric made of aramido fibers which are not bonded or fused at their intersections. Ans. 3. Nor does the Examiner rely upon such Japanese Patent Application to show that such known damper is formed of a fabric made of aramido fibers which are not bonded or fused at their intersections. Id. Had the Examiner rely upon some evidence to show that the known damper is formed of a fabric made of aramido fibers which are not bonded or fused at their intersections, such evidence may have demonstrated that claim 10 is anticipated within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102. Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[W]hether a reference 'teaches away' from [an] invention is inapplicable to an anticipation 4 Appeal2015-000057 Application 13/075,598 forming a polymeric fabric damper having no bonds or fusion at the intersections of polymer fibers, contrary to the teachings of Okazaki. Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2-5. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 10-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-22, and 24 for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief. ORDER In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10- 12, 14, 16, 17, 19-22, and 24 is REVERSED. REVERSED analysis.") (quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'! Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). However, we do not have such evidence before us. 5