Ex Parte Melillo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2011

10836814 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 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.
10/836,814 04/30/2004 Louis Melillo 1860-0005 9267
7590 09/28/2011
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
Chase Tower
111 Monument Circle, Suite 3250
Indianapolis, IN 46204-5109
EXAMINER
SAUNDERS JR, JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2011 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 LOUIS MELILLO
_____________

Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

App
App

claim

arran
more
Fig.
have
eal 2009-0
lication 10
Appellan
s 12, 15-1
We affir
Appellan
Appellan
gement fo
voice coi
2). This v
many vol
12908
/836,814
ST
t appeals
7, and 21
m.
t’s Figure
t’s Figure
r a speake
ls to adjus
ariable im
ume levels
ATEMEN
under 35 U
-32. We h
INV
2 is repro
2 and clai
r where sw
t the voice
pedance co
in a distri
2
T OF TH
.S.C. § 13
ave jurisdi

ENTION
duced belo
med inven
itches can
coil impe
il arrange
buted syst
E CASE
4(a) from
ction unde

w:
tion are d
selectabl
dance (see
ment allow
em, or allo
the final r
r 35 U.S.C
irected to
y connect
Spec. 4:2
s the spea
ws the sp
ejection o
. § 6(b).
a voice coi
two or
-5; Abs.;
ker to
eaker to be

f
l

Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814

3
configured as either a high impedance speaker or a low (4 or 8 ohm)
impedance speaker (see Spec. 4:5-8).
As shown in Figure 2, the speaker 200 includes a diaphragm 202, a
first voice coil 204, a second voice coil 206, a third voice coil 208, a fourth
voice coil 210, a magnetic core 220, and a switchable terminal 212 (Spec.
9:6-7, 9). The switchable terminal 212 further includes first, second, and
third switches 228, 230, and 232 respectively (Spec. 9:8-9). The switches
228, 230, and 232 may be used to selectively connect one, two, three, or all
four of the coils 204, 206, 208, and 210 in series or parallel to obtain the
desired impedance (Spec. 11:1-2; 4:18-20).
Claim 29, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases added):
29. A loudspeaker arrangement comprising:
a loudspeaker configured for use with a 70 volt audio amplifier
signal;
a plurality of voice coils operably supported on the loudspeaker;
a switchable terminal having a manually-operated switch configured
to selectively connect the plurality of voice coils in a plurality of
configurations, each configuration defining one of a plurality of impedances
for the plurality of voice coils.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
DiSanza US 2004/0122541 A1 Jun. 24, 2004
(filed Jan. 27, 2003)
Sahyoun US 2004/0196987 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
(filed Mar. 9, 2004)
Vonlanthen US 6,934,400 B1 Aug. 23, 2005
(filed Nov. 3, 2000)
Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814

4
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Sahyoun.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 12, 15-17, and 21-28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sahyoun in view of Vonlanthen
and DiSanza.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sahyoun in view of Vonlanthen.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in determining that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “manually-operated switch” as recited in claim 29 reads on
Sahyoun’s “universal connection block”?
2. Did the Examiner err in determining that Sahyoun would have
taught or suggested the limitation of “a loudspeaker configured for use with
a 70 volt audio amplifier signal” as recited in claim 29?
3. Did the Examiner err in determining that Sahyoun would have
taught or suggested a “switch” as recited in claim 15?
4. Did the Examiner err in determining that it would have been
obvious to modify Sahyoun’s system to include four voice coils as taught in
Vonlanthen to meet the limitation of “four voice coils” as recited in claim
15?
5. Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of
Sahyoun, Vonlanthen, and DiSanza would have taught or suggested the
limitation of “at least one of the impedances being at least about 64 ohms,
Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814

5
wherein at least another one of the impedances is at most about 4 ohms” as
recited in claim 21?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence:
1. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines switch as: “5: a
device for making, breaking, or changing the connections in an electrical
circuit” (MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1193 (10th ed.
1999)).
2. Sahyoun teaches that the universal connection block 16 uses
conductive jumper(s) 36 to electrically connect or disconnect to voice coils
in series or in parallel (¶¶ [0030], [0033]; Figs. 6, 7).
3. Sahyoun teaches that it is known to match the speaker impedance
with the output impedance of the amplifier used with the audio system (¶
[0005]).
4. Sahyoun teaches a speaker interconnection block that allows the
user to wire two voice coils in series when a higher speaker impedance is
desired or in parallel when a lower speaker impedance is desired (¶ [0009]).
5. DiSanza teaches that “headphones may have an impedance value
between 16 OHMS and 60 OHMS and speakers may have an impedance
value between 4 and 16 OHMS” (¶ [0036]).

Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAWS
“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted).
To avoid anticipation, apparatus claims must be distinguished from
the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, even if a prior art device is used
for a different purpose, it will nevertheless anticipate the claim if it expressly
or inherently contains all claimed structural features and is capable of
performing the intended function. See id.

ANALYSIS
I. Analysis with respect to the rejection of claims 29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Sahyoun.
A. Does Sahyoun teach a “manually-operated switch” as recited in
claim 29?
Appellant argues that Sahyoun’s “universal connection block” and
jumper arrangement fail to teach or suggest the limitation of “a switchable
terminal having a manually-operated switch” as recited in claim 29 (App.
Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellant contends that “manually-operated
switches” are known in the art to “remain mechanically connected to the
circuit support structure regardless of whether they are making or breaking
the connection” (App. Br. 8). Appellant asserts that “a switch that includes a
part that is physically removed and unconnected to the circuit in any manner,
such as [Sahyoun’s] jumper, does not constitute a switch” (App. Br. 8
(emphases added)).
Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814

7
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner
reasons, and we agree, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“switch” is consistent with the dictionary definition of “a device for making,
breaking, or changing the connections in an electrical circuit” (FF 1; Ans.
11). See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Therefore, Sahyoun’s universal
connection block, which is a manually-operated device for “making,
breaking, or changing the connections in an electrical circuit,” meets the
claim limitation of a “manually-operated switch” (FF 2).
Furthermore, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the
claim limitation because the claim does not recite that switches remain
mechanically connected to the circuit support structure regardless of
whether they are making or breaking the connection (App. Br. 8).

B. Does Sahyoun teach or suggest “a loudspeaker configured for use
with a 70 volt audio amplifier signal” as recited in claim 29?
Appellant argues that Sahyoun‘s loudspeakers do not disclose “a
loudspeaker configured for use with a 70 volt audio amplifier signal,” as
recited in claim 29, because Sahyoun does not teach a “speaker having
sufficient impedance or other physical features that make it compatible with
70 volt audio signals” (App. Br. 8-9).
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds
(Ans. 12), and we agree, that Sahyoun’s loudspeakers meet the claim
limitation because Sahyoun’s loudspeakers are “capable of” performing the
intended function of use with a 70 volt audio amplifier signal with a
transformer. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477-78.
The Examiner explains that “Appellant’s specification states
‘commercial system installers have employed transformers to step down the
Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814

8
voltage at the loudspeaker to allow for the use of 4 or 8 ohm loudspeakers
with 70 or 100 volt systems’” (Ans. 12). Therefore, Sahyoun’s
loudspeakers, without any physical modification, are “capable of” use with a
70 V audio signal with a transformer. Claim 29 is open-ended because of
the term “comprising” in the preamble, and thus, the claim does not exclude
the use of a transformer (see Ans. 12-13).
Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 and
dependent claims 30-32 which fall with claim 29 as no additional arguments
of patentability were presented with respect to these claims. See In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

II. Analysis with respect to the rejection of claims 12, 15-17, and 21-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sahyoun in view of
Vonlanthen and DiSanza.
A. Would Sahyoun have taught or suggested a “switch” as recited in
claim 15?
Appellant argues that Sahyoun does not teach or suggest the “switch”
as recited in claim 15 for the reasons given with respect to claim 29 (App.
Br. 11). For the reasons stated above in section I.A. with respect to claim
29, we find that Sahyoun does teach or suggest the claimed “switch.”
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments that Sahyoun teaches
away from the use of a switch to change coil configurations and that it
would have been non-obvious to modify Sahyoun to include a switch (App.
Br. 11). As we stated above under section I.A., we agree with the
Examiner’s finding (FF 1; Ans. 11) that Sahyoun’s universal connection
block and jumper arrangement meets the “switch” limitation.

Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814

9
B. Would it have been obvious to modify Sahyoun’s system to include
four voice coils as taught in Vonlanthen to meet the limitation of “four
voice coils” as recited in claim 15?
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine
Sahyoun and Vonlanthen to modify Sahyoun’s two voice coil system to
meet the claim 15 limitation of “four voice coils” (App. Br. 12-13).
Appellant argues that there is no indication that Vonlanthen’s reason to use
two or more coils for widely adjustable impedance levels and increased
dynamic range in a hearing aid is advantageous in the invention of Sahyoun
(App. Br 12-14). Appellant contends that Sahyoun teaches away from
adding the significant complexity that could accompany the use of four
voice coils as taught by Vonlanthen (App. Br. 13-14).
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify
Sahyoun, by using two or more coils as taught by Vonlanthen (Ans. 8, 14).
The primary reference Sahyoun solves the problem of matching the
amplifier output by adjusting the speaker impedance using switching to
change the wiring of the voice coils (FF 3, 4). Vonlanthen teaches that it
was known to use two or more coils to change the impedance of a speaker
system which varies the dynamic range (i.e., volume). Therefore, one
skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Sahyoun to match the
speaker impedance, by using two or more coils as taught by Vonlanthen to
increase the range of speaker impedances. It is a predictable result that
using two or more coils as taught by Vonlanthen would provide more
options for impedance values and a larger impedance range. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814

10
Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 and
dependent claims 12, 16, and 17, which fall with claim 15 as no additional
arguments for patentability were presented with respect to these claims. See
Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572.

C. Would the combination of Sahyoun, Vonlanthen, and DiSanza
have taught or suggested the limitation of “at least one of the
impedances being at least about 64 ohms, wherein at least another
one of the impedances is at most about 4 ohms” as recited in claim
21?
Appellant argues that the claim 21 limitation of “at least one of the
impedances being at least about 64 ohms, wherein at least another one of the
impedances is at most about 4 ohms” would have been non-obvious over the
combination of Sahyoun, Vonlanthen, and DiSanza (App. Br. 15).
Appellant argues that (App. Br. 15) to meet the limitation at issue, very
unconventional coils of 4.3 ohms and 59.7 ohms are required. Appellant
argues that the prior art does not suggest the necessity of employing 64 ohms
as a useful impedance (App. Br. 16). Appellant contends that DiSanza’s
paragraph [0036] “specifically teaches that the range for speakers (other than
headphones) is 4 to 16 ohms” (App. Br. 16).
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner reasons,
and we agree, that DiSanza suggests the limitation at issue (Ans. 7-9, 15-16).
DiSanza’s paragraph [0036] teaches that speakers for headphones may have
an impedance value between 16 OHMS and 60 OHMS and speakers may
have an impedance value between 4 and 16 OHMS (FF 5).
We agree with the Examiner it would have been obvious to modify
the loud speaker system of the combination of Sahyoun and Vonlanthen to
use configurations of voice coils with one impedance at about 64 ohms and
Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814

11
another impedance at about 4 ohms as suggested by DiSanza depending on
the type of use to allow for a single versatile speaker to be suitable for many
different applications covering conventional impedance ranges taught by
DiSanza (see Ans. 9).
Appellant also argues that claim 21 is non-obvious over the
combination of references for the same reasons as those presented for claim
15 (App. Br. 14). For the reasons stated above with respect to claim 15, we
find that claim 21 is obvious in view the combination of references.
Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 and
dependent claims 22-28, which fall with claim 21 as no additional arguments
for patentability were presented with respect to these claims. See Nielson,
816 F.2d at 1572.

III. Analysis with respect to the rejection of claims 30 and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sahyoun in view of Vonlanthen.
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 30
and 32, which fall with claim 29 as no additional arguments for patentability
were presented (App. Br. 16-17) with respect to these claims. See Nielson,
816 F.2d at 1572.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in determining that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “manually-operated switch” as recited in claim
29 reads on Sahyoun’s “universal connection block.”
2. The Examiner did not err in determining that Sahyoun would have
taught or suggested the limitation of “a loudspeaker configured for use with
a 70 volt audio amplifier signal” as recited in claim 29.
Appeal 2009-012908
Application 10/836,814

12
3. The Examiner did not err in determining that Sahyoun would have
taught or suggested a “switch” as recited in claim 15.
4. The Examiner did not err in determining that it would have been
obvious to modify Sahyoun’s system to include four voice coils as taught in
Vonlanthen to meet the limitation of “four voice coils” as recited in claim
15.
5. The Examiner did not err in determining that the combination of
Sahyoun, Vonlanthen, and DiSanza would have taught or suggested the
limitation of “at least one of the impedances being at least about 64 ohms,
wherein at least another one of the impedances is at most about 4 ohms” as
recited in claim 21.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 12, 15-17, and 21-32 is
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc