Ex parte Narus

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 24, 1999

08162364 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 1999)

Application for patent filed October 28, 1993.1
1
Paper No. 17
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte CHRIS NARUS
______________
Appeal No. 96-2346
Application 08/162,3641
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, MARTIN and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-2346
Application 08/162,364
2
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 22 through 39, which comprise all
the claims remaining in the application.
Representative claim 22 is reproduced below:
22. A speaker system having increased sound quality
which comprises:
a first and second speaker, said speakers each having a
front and a back;
a duct having a first elongated portion, a second
elongated portion and a third elongated portion, said first
portion having an axial extremity in fluid communication with
said back of said first speaker, said second portion having an
axial extremity in fluid communication with said back of said
second speaker; and said third portion being disposed
intermediate said first and second portion;
said third portion includes an elongated first spur and a
bass port is located at one end thereof, said spur being
intermediate said first and second portions;
each of said speakers having the front thereof in contact
with air outside of said duct and the back thereof in contact
with air inside said duct.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Hudson, III (Hudson) 4,756,382 July 12,
1988
Claims 22 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b)as being anticipated by Hudson. The rejection of other
Appeal No. 96-2346
Application 08/162,364
We note in passing that claim 37 depends from cancelled claim 21 and2
that claims 38 and 39 in turn depend from claim 37. The examiner has noted
this only with respect to claim 37 at page 5 of the answer as well.
3
claims under this portion of 35 U.S.C., as well as under 35
U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn as set forth at page 5 of the
answer.2
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We sustain the rejection of claim 22 as being anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Hudson, but reverse the rejection of
dependent claim 28.
With respect to the rejection of claim 22, appellant's
arguments focus only upon the language of claim 22 reciting
that the third portion has an elongated first spur. In our
view, the examiner is correct in characterizing the duct 32 in
the embodiment shown in Figure 3 as comprising an elongated
first spur. Contrary to appellant's assertion at page 8 of
the brief, it is not beyond dispute that duct 32 is wider than
it is long. The claim does not require that the first spur of
Appeal No. 96-2346
Application 08/162,364
4
the third portion is longer than the first or second portions
as disclosed in Figures 1 and 3. That the third portion's
first spur extends beyond the surface anywhere from tubular
enclosure 16, we consider it elongated to the extent broadly
recited in claim 22. There is no bounds or reference point to
the term “elongated.”
Moreover, the Figure 5 showing in Hudson is stated to be
an alternative embodiment to that shown in Figure 3. Figure 5
clearly shows that the region L3 is longer in an elongated
sense than the similar dimensions L2 and L1 of the
perpendicularly extending duct 32 in Figure 3. The discussion
at column 5 with respect to the Figure 3 embodiment clearly
defines in Hudson the width dimensions as being depicted by W
and the length dimensions being conveyed in terms of L of the
duct 32. Therefore, the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is sustained.
As to the rejection of dependent claim 28, it is
difficult to understand the examiner's reasoning as it applies
Appeal No. 96-2346
Application 08/162,364
5
to the Figures 4 and 6 embodiments of Hudson. The examiner's
reasoning appears to be somewhat strained. In any event, the
middle region of the longitudinally extending duct 34, as
analogized by the examiner as comprising the claimed first
spur, does not appear to have a middle region in Figures 4 and
6 depicting an “extremity.” Since claim 22 requires that the
spur be located at a position intermediate the first and
second portions of the claim, the more specific recitation in
dependent claim 28 would require that the axial extremity
claimed be in the middle portion of the longitudinally
extending duct 34. There is no furthest or most remote part
(that is, an extremity) in this region of it that contains an
oblique face as urged by the examiner.
The examiner's position at the bottom of page 4 of the
answer appears to state that the first spur or duct 34 has an
oblique face because the duct has a crescent-shaped opening.
To the extent the end portions of longitudinally extending
duct 34 show crescent-shaped openings, there is no axial
“extremity” and certainty no oblique face in the Figures 4 and
6 embodiments. In view of the foregoing, the decision of
Appeal No. 96-2346
Application 08/162,364
6
the examiner rejecting claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
affirmed, but the examiner's position as to claim 28 is
reversed. As such, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-
in-part.
Appeal No. 96-2346
Application 08/162,364
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOHN C. MARTIN ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JDT/cam
Appeal No. 96-2346
Application 08/162,364
8
Robert S. Smith
57 Pratt Street, Suite 513
Hartford, CT 06103