Ex Parte Shirakawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2003

09466322 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2003)

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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte HIDETOSHI SHIRAKAWA
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0852
Application 09/466,322
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claim 1. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Invention
The invention relates to an elongated oval track-shaped
loudspeaker. See page 2 of Appellant’s specification. Referring
to figures 1 and 2, a magnet 11 is disposed around a pole piece
10. The pole piece 10 forming the magnetic circuit together with
Appeal No. 2002-0852
Application 09/466,322
2
a base plate 13 is formed in an elongated oval track-shape. See
page 7 of Appellant’s specification. The pole piece is made in a
circular shape in its section, the cross sectional area S of the
pole piece 10 is made to be equal to the circle of a diameter
more than 1/3 with respect to the minor axis side length a, so
that no magnetic saturation will occur. Thus, the magnetic
efficiency can be improved. See page 8 of Appellant’s
specification.
Appellant’s claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. An elongated oval track-shaped loudspeaker wherein a
voice coil wound on a bobbin is disposed in a magnetic gap
between a pole piece and a plate on a magnet disposed around the
pole piece, an elongated oval track-shaped diaphragm is joined to
the voice coil bobbin supported through a damper to a frame, the
pole piece is track-shaped to elongate along major axis of the
track-shaped diaphragm, the voice coil bobbin in the gap as well
as the magnet disposed around the pole piece are track-shaped,
the damper supporting the voice coil bobbin is track-shaped at
inner and outer peripheries, and a cross sectional area of the
track-shaped pole piece is made to be equal to that of a circle
of a diameter more than 1/3 of a minor axis side length of the
loudspeaker so that no magnetic saturation will occur even with
the magnet made larger and a magnetic efficiency can be elevated.
Reference
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Yoshida 62-143398 Sept. 10, 1987
Appeal No. 2002-0852
Application 09/466,322
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on August 28, 2001.
Appellant filed a reply brief on February 19, 2002. The Examiner
mailed a letter on March 26, 2002 stating that the reply brief
has been entered.
3
Rejection at Issue
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yoshida. Throughout the opinion, we will make
reference to the briefs1 and the answer.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter.
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal No. 2002-0852
Application 09/466,322
4
1988). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Appellant argues that Yoshida fails to teach or suggest a
cross sectional area of the track-shaped pole piece is made
to be equal to that of a circle of a diameter more than 1/3
of a minor axis side length of the loudspeaker so that no
magnetic saturation will occur even with the magnet made
larger and a magnetic efficiency can be elevated
as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. See pages 3 and 4 of the
brief and pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief.
In the answer, the Examiner states:
The cross sectional area of the pole piece of the Reference
is believed to be equal to that of a circle of a diameter
Appeal No. 2002-0852
Application 09/466,322
5
more than 1/3 of the minor axis side length of the
loudspeaker. The Reference Fig. 2 clearly shows that the
cross sectional area of the pole piece is equal to that of a
circle diameter more than 1/3 of the minor axis side length
of the loudspeaker (the minor axis side length of the
loudspeaker being the minor side length of the frame 2).

See page 5 of the Examiner’s answer.
Upon our review of Yoshida, we find no basis for the
Examiner’s finding that Yoshida teaches a cross sectional area of
the track-shaped pole piece is made equal to that of a circle of
a diameter more than 1/3 of the minor axis side length of a
loudspeaker. We appreciate the Examiner’s speculation as to the
dimensions shown in the drawings. However, the Federal Circuit
has stated that “it is well established that patent drawings do
not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be
relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is
completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt Inc., v.
Avia Group Int’l Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491
Appeal No. 2002-0852
Application 09/466,322
6
(Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of Appellant’s claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgg
Appeal No. 2002-0852
Application 09/466,322
7
Lynn & Lynn
2915 Redhill Avenue
Suite F200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626