Ex Parte LIDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201814770948 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/770,948 08/27/2015 Steve LI 109676 7590 09/05/2018 Brooks Kushman P.C./Harman 1000 Town Center Twenty Second Floor Southfield, MI 48075 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. HARM0474PUSA 3213 EXAMINER EASON,MATTHEW A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVE LI Appeal2018-000728 Application 14/770,948 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 10-15, and 20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention relates to a speaker having a bass tube. See Spec. ,r,r 1--4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Harman International Industries, Incorporated. App. Br. 1. Appeal2018-000728 Application 14/770,948 1. A speaker, comprising: a speaker box which defines an inner chamber; and a bass tube extending outward from the inner chamber, where an external part of the bass tube which is outside the speaker box forms a supporting structure of the speaker, where the external part of the bass tube includes an opening formed at an outer end thereof, and where a plate serves as a sidewall of the opening of the external part of the bass tube. Claims 1--4, 10-15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kageyama Masayoshi et al. (JP 2006-229815 A; Aug. 31, 2006) ("Kageyama"). See Final Act. 3-7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We concur with Appellant's contention that the Examiner erred in finding the teachings of Kageyama teaches or suggests "a plate serves as a sidewall of the opening of the external part of the bass tube," as recited in claim 1, because "the Examiner[' s] proposed modification that the 'portion of the tube 21' of Kageyama 'could be removed' so that the plate 22 serves as a sidewall to the opening 21 a is based on a possibility that is neither contemplated nor disclosed in Kageyama." App. Br. 3. As Appellant also contends: [F]irst off, there's nothing in Kageyama that discusses the overall relevance of the height of the bass tube and why one skilled in the art would be so inclined to modify the height of the bass tube. Secondly, assuming for example that a height adjustment is desired for the implementation of Kageyama, one skilled in the art may simply reduce the overall height of the tube 21. This condition does not necessitate or require 2 Appeal2018-000728 Application 14/770,948 eliminating the entire "portion of the tube 21" that is positioned intermediate to the opening 21a ( or below the opening 21a) so that the plate 22 serves as a sidewall to the opening 21 of Kageyama. Again, the Examiner's motivation to modify Kageyama is solely based on the teachings contained within Appellant's disclosure as opposed to any factual evidence that was known to one skilled in the art. App. Br. 5. Appellant further contends "[t]he Examiner's asserted motivation fails to address why one skilled in the art would be inclined to remove the entire portion of the tube 21 of that is positioned below the opening 21 a such that the so-called plate 22 of Kageyama serves as a sidewall for the [ opening] 2Ia of the bass tube SI." Id. We agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Kageyama in the manner explained by the Examiner based on the Examiner's stated reasoning or the reference's disclosure. As further pointed out by Appellant (App. Br. 5), the Examiner's proposed modification of eliminating the bottom portion of tube 21 of Kageyama next to the opening 21 a would not necessarily be required for height reduction or even recognized by those having ordinary skill in the art. In support of this argument, Appellant correctly points to Figure 4 of Kageyama where height reduction is addressed in the form of a sliding portion of the bass tube that slides in and out while the portion of tube 21 next the opening is maintained. See Reply Br. 2. In other words, the Examiner's proposed rationale does not articulate why the skilled artisan would modify Kageyama by removing "the portion of tube 21 intermediate the opening 21 a and plate 22" (see Final Act. 3), whereas the reference addresses height adjustment in a different manner that 3 Appeal2018-000728 Application 14/770,948 does not require removing any portion of the bass tube. Such rationale does not rise to the level of an articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Therefore, Appellant's arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's position with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 12 and 20, which recite similar limitations, and claims 2--4, 10, 11, and 13-15 dependent therefrom. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 10-15, and 20. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation