Ex Parte Kutil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2017

14246388 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2017)

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.
14/246,388 04/07/2014 Joseph J. Kutil P-13-023-US 6143
71016 7590
Bose Corporation
Patent Group
Mountain Road, MS 3B1
Framingham, MA 01701
EXAMINER
ETESAM, AMIR HOSSEIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2017 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 JOSEPH J. KUTIL, PAUL F. FIDLIN, PETER C. SANTORO,
ROBERT A. WARDEN, and KENNETH D. JACOB
Appeal 2017-008814
Application 14/246,388
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—23, and 34. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Bose Corporation as the real party in interest (Br. 1).
Appeal 2017- 008814
Application 14/367,769
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
A loudspeaker system comprising:
a first flexible panel:
a first line array of electro-acoustic drivers mounted on the first
flexible panel, each of the electro-acoustic drivers of the first line
array being linked to each other by flexible joints in the first flexible
panel; and
at least one mechanically adjustable point that enables articulation
of the first flexible panel at the flexible joints to produce one or more
of a substantially straight and an arcuate configuration of the first line
array of electro-acoustic drivers, wherein the first flexible panel is
coupled to a first sectional horn that curves in conjunction with the
first line array of electro-acoustic drivers when positioned in an
arcuate configuration.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3—8, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
being unpatentable over Colich (US 2005/0201583 Al, Sept. 15, 2005) and
further in view of Gunness (US 6,009,182, Dec. 28, 1999).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Colich and further in view of Gunness and Vandersteen (US 2003/0053644
Al, Mar. 20, 2003).
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Colich and further in view of Gunness and Martin (US
5,758,852, June 2, 1998).
Claims 11 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Colich and further in view of Gunness and Jablonski (US
2013/0212836 Al, Aug. 22, 2013).
2
Appeal 2017- 008814
Application 14/367,769
Claims 18—23 are rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Colich and further in view of Gunness and Martin.
Appellants ’ Contentions2
(1) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “It would be impractical and not make sense to
one skilled in the art to utilize horns in the two dimensional array of
subwoofers disclosed in Colich.” (Br. 3).
(2) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “There is no disclosure whatsoever
in Martin that the handle 38 of the quick release pin device 34 should
be manipulated to enable manual adjustment of a first flexible panel on
which are mounted a line array of electro-acoustic drivers.” (Br. 4).
(3) Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “there is absolutely no reason why one
skilled in the art would put a woofer behind an array of subwoofers.” (Br. 5).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3—17 and 19-23. Except for
our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2017- 008814
Application 14/367,769
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree because
Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and
are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). This reasoning
is applicable here.
We also find combining the respective reference teachings in the
manner proffered by the Examiner (Final Act. 5; Ans. 3) would have merely
resulted in “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions,” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). We find the Examiner provided sufficient articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also Final Act. 5.3 We are further mindful that
the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
3 The Examiner finds “[sjince both Colich and Gunness disclose a curved
speaker array, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the
art at the time of the invention to utilize the horn and housing structure
disclosed by Gunness in the teachings by Colich. The motivation for this
would have been mechanically amplifying the signal and increase signal
directivity.” Final Act. 5.
4
Appeal 2017- 008814
Application 14/367,769
together like pieces of a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420—21.
As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we disagree.
Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree:
Column 7, lines 30-43 of Martin discloses “The loudspeakers, being
in a fixed position, can then be suspended as a group utilizing two
extended shackle mounts 8 fastened to the top truss modules 1 of each
of the loudspeakers with the use of quick release pins 34. The
extended shackle mounts 8 can be attached at any one of the selected
holes included in the truss module 1 tubular assemblies. The extended
shackle mount 8 is retained in the truss module 1 by passing a quick
release pin 34 through one side of the extended shackle mount 8 then
through the truss module 1 tubular assembly then through the opposite
side of the extended shackle mount 8. The extended shackle mount 8
can be positioned toward the rear of the truss module 1 in order to
cause the loudspeaker grouping to tilt downward or the extended
shackle mount 8 can be positioned toward the front of the truss
module 1 in order to cause the loudspeaker grouping to suspend
vertically or tilt upward.”
Ans. 3^4.
As to Appellants’ above contention 3, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings and underlying reasoning (Ans. 4),4 which are incorporated herein
by reference.
We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut such findings,
including the Examiner’s responses to Appellants’ arguments.
4 The Examiner finds “Tsobaric design’ of subwoofers, known to an
ordinary skilled in the art, is making combination of woofers in a face to
face, back to face and back to back orientations, refers to systems in which
two or more woofers operate simultaneously to improve low-end frequency
response without increasing cabinet size. It would be obvious to an ordinary
skilled in the art to put two woofers behind each other to achieve a certain
frequency response as indicated in the previous office action.” Ans. 4.
5
Appeal 2017- 008814
Application 14/367,769
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—23, and 34 are affirmed.
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
6