Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 31, 2002

08725762 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 31, 2002)

1 Application for patent filed October 4, 1996, entitled
"Speaker System Having an Amplifying Horn," which claims the
foreign filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of Republic
of Korea Application 96-12218, filed April 22, 1996.
2 Claim 11 was amended after the final rejection (Paper
No. 8) to incorporate the limitations of dependent claim 12.
- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte JAE-NAM KIM

Appeal No. 2001-0259
Application 08/725,7621

ON BRIEF

Before BARRETT, RUGGIERO, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
final rejection of claims 112 and 13. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are
indicated to be allowable.
Appeal No. 2001-0259
Application 08/725,762
- 2 -
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a speaker system which collects and
amplifies sounds projected in the rearward direction of the
speaker.
Claim 11 is reproduced below.
11. A speaker-horn arrangement for sound reproduction,
comprising:
a speaker having a frame and a membrane affixed to the
frame, said frame having openings in a rearward section
thereof;
a horn having a sound collection section with a
plurality of sound collecting openings, each of said sound
collecting openings collecting sound from at least one of
said openings of the frame, wherein said sound collection
system is coupled to half the number of said openings in
said speaker frame.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Jung 5,206,465 April 27, 1993
Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jung.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 7) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13)
for a statement of the examiner's rejection, and to the brief
(Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as "Br__") and reply brief
Appeal No. 2001-0259
Application 08/725,762
- 3 -
(Paper No. 14) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Since claim 12 was incorporated into independent claim 11 by
the amendment after final rejection (Paper No. 8), the rejection
of claims 11 and 13 is now over § 103(a) instead of § 102(b).
Thus, we only consider appellant's arguments regarding Issue 4.
Jung discloses several embodiments of a sound collecting and
concentrating device. In the first embodiment of figures 1-3, a
plurality of sound collecting tubes 10 are attached to the
speaker frame 1 with each sound collecting tube positioned
directly concentric with one of the trapezoidal cut-outs in the
frame. The outlet ends 12 of the sound collecting tube have horn
attaching means 15, 16 (see figure 5) to permit attachment of a
conventional horn (col. 5, lines 21-23). In the third embodiment
of figures 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3, the sound collecting tube 51 having
an integral horn has an inlet end 52 with four inlet segments
53a, 53b, 53c, and 53d, each defining a separate tube which
combines with the tube 51, where each segment is attached over
one or more of the trapezoidal cut-outs in the loudspeaker frame
(col. 6, line 50 to col. 7, line 12). The first and third
embodiments show the sound collecting tubes covering all of the
trapezoidal cut-outs on the back area of the loudspeaker.
However, Jung states that "the inlet end segment(s) concentric
Appeal No. 2001-0259
Application 08/725,762
- 4 -
[sic] cover some or all of the trapezoidal cut-outs which are
shown in FIG. 3" (col. 6, lines 47-49). In the fifth embodiment
of figures 10-1, 10-2, and 10-3, a sound collecting tube 70 with
an integral horn 76 has a single inlet segment end 72 designed to
shroud one half of the back area of the loudspeaker.
In claim 11, the limitation "wherein said sound collection
section is coupled to half the number of said openings in said
speaker frame" is subject to interpretation. While appellant
argues as if the limitation means that the sound collection
section is coupled to only half the number of frame openings, the
limitation appears to be broad enough to read on coupling to all
the frame openings because if the sound collection section is
coupled to all the frame openings, it is also coupled to half the
number of frame openings. Thus, it appears that claim 11 is
broad enough to be anticipated by Jung. Nevertheless, we address
appellant's argument that the sound collection section is coupled
to only half the number of frame openings.
The difference between the first and third embodiments of
Jung and the subject matter of claim 11 is that the sound
collecting tubes in Jung are coupled to all of the frame
openings, whereas, under the assumed claim interpretation, the
sound collection section is coupled to only half the number of
frame openings. The difference between the fifth embodiment of
Jung and the subject matter of claim 11 is that a single sound
Appeal No. 2001-0259
Application 08/725,762
- 5 -
collecting tube in Jung is coupled to one-half the area of the
loudspeaker, which is considered equivalent to half the number of
openings where there are an even number of openings, whereas
claim 11 recites a plurality of sound collecting openings.
The examiner (FR6) refers to column 6, lines 45-49 of Jung,
which states, in part, that "the inlet end segment(s) concentric
[sic] cover some or all of the trapezoidal cut-outs" (col. 6,
lines 47-48), and the examiner concludes that since Jung does not
limit the number of sound collecting sections, "it would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any number for
the sound collecting sections of the horn of Jung such as half
the number of the openings of the frame for a choice of listeners
preference" (FR6). That is, "some or all" describes any number
of cut-outs, from one to all of the cut-outs.
Appellant argues that the examiner's statement is a "bald
assertion" (Br10) without factual basis and that there is no
motivation to make the suggested modification (Br10). It is
argued that Jung discloses either a sound collecting horn with a
plurality of inlet segments which cover all the openings in the
frame of a speaker, or a single inlet opening which covers less
than all the openings, but does not suggest a plurality of sound
collecting openings connected to half the number of openings in
the frame of the speaker (Br11).
Appeal No. 2001-0259
Application 08/725,762
- 6 -
These arguments do not address the examiner's finding that
Jung teaches "the inlet end segment(s) concentric [sic] cover
some or all of the trapezoidal cut-outs" (col. 6, lines 47-48) or
the examiner's reasoning that "some" includes one half the number
of cut-outs absent some teaching to the contrary.
Appellant addresses the examiner's argument about "some" in
the reply brief. It is argued that there is no motivation to
make the necessary changes and that figure 3 of Jung does not
suggest a sound collection section coupled to one half the number
of openings in the speaker frame (RBr2-3).
We agree with the examiner that Jung's statement that "the
inlet end segment(s) concentric [sic] cover some or all of the
trapezoidal cut-outs" (col. 6, lines 47-48) expressly suggests
that plural segments in the first and third embodiments can cover
"some or all" of the cut-outs and that "some" manifestly includes
one half the number of cut-outs. The examiner has stated a prima
facie case of obviousness as to claim 11 which has not been shown
to be in error. In addition, even without the statement at
column 6, it is our opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated by Jung's teaching in the fifth
embodiment of a single inlet segment designed to shroud one half
of the back area of the loudspeaker, to use one half of the four
inlet segments in the third embodiment to shroud one half of the
back area and, consequently, one half the number of cut-outs. In
Appeal No. 2001-0259
Application 08/725,762
- 7 -
summary, there are three good reasons why claim 11 is
unpatentable: (1) it is anticipated by the broad claim language
which does not preclude attachment to all speaker cut-outs;
(2) Jung teaches that segments can be coupled to "some or all" of
the cut-outs, which suggests coupling to any number of cut-outs,
including one half of the number of cut-outs; and (3) the
teaching of covering half the speaker area with a single segment
in the fifth embodiment would have suggested modifying the plural
segment third embodiment to cover only half the cut-outs.
Claim 13 has not been separately argued and, so, its
patentability stands or falls together with that of claim 11.
The rejection of claims 11 and 13 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
Appeal No. 2001-0259
Application 08/725,762
- 8 -
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-0259
Application 08/725,762
- 9 -
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MacPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202