Ex Parte Zhu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 17, 201411113852 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LIZHONG ZHU, GEORGE MANKARUSE, and MICHAEL CORRIGAN ____________ Appeal 2011-012704 Application1 11/113,852 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to a speaker system resistant to radio frequency electromagnetic interference using an operational amplifier filter in the circuit board. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Research In Motion Limited as the Real Party in Interest (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2011-012704 Application 11/113,852 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-18, and 20-22 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A speaker system resistant to RF [radio frequency] electromagnetic interference produced from a nearby mobile wireless communications device comprising: a speaker housing that is sized for desktop use with a personal computer; an audio transducer carried by the speaker housing; a circuit board carried by the speaker housing and having audio circuitry mounted thereon and operative with the audio transducer, said audio circuitry including a power amplifier having left and right channel inputs for receiving and amplifying a respective audio signal; and a respective RF filter coupled to each of said left and right channel inputs to reduce the RF electromagnetic interference produced by the nearby mobile wireless communications device; said audio circuitry further comprising an operational amplifier operative as a preamplifier with said power amplifier for receiving and amplifying audio signals to the power amplifier, said operational amplifier including a voltage rail, left and right operational amplifier channel inputs coupled to said voltage rail and a feedback line coupled to said left and right operational amplifier channel inputs, and including an operational amplifier RF filter coupled to one of at least said voltage rail, each of said left and right operational amplifier channel inputs, and said feedback line of said operational amplifier. Appeal 2011-012704 Application 11/113,852 3 The following grounds of rejection are before us for review: The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over the Mancini2 in view of the Advanic.3 The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over the Mancini in view of Advanic in further view of Böhnke.4 OBVIOUSNESS OVER MANCINI AND ADVANIC The issue is whether it “[w]ould [] have been obvious to use the operational amplifier based RF interference reduction audio amplifier of Mancini in a USB speaker since Advanic teaches a USB speaker with an RF interference reduction audio amplifier?” (Ans. 10). After considering the evidence and the arguments, we conclude the evidence favors the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning (see Grounds of Rejection, Ans. 4-9), and agree that the Examiner properly found Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive (see Response to Argument, Ans. 10-19). We provide the following points for emphasis. Appellants contend that the Mancini reference presents “disjoint[ed] and mutually exclusive teachings” (App. Br. 12, see also 11, 13). We are not persuaded. Any judgment on obviousness is . . . necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level 2 Ron Mancini, OP AMPS FOR EVERYONE, Design Reference, Texas Instruments (2002). 3 Advan, Product No. AD82550 Stereo Digital Audio Amplifier with Headphone Driver, Advanic Technologies, Inc. (Jan 2005). 4 Böhnke, US 6,546,107 B1, issued Apr. 8, 2003. Appeal 2011-012704 Application 11/113,852 4 of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). We agree with the Examiner’s position that “Mancini teaches various methods for implementing operational amplifiers, especially in audio amplifiers; however, appellant provides no basis supporting the contention that the various sections of Mancini are ‘independent’, ‘mutually exclusive’, and ‘disjoint’.” (Ans. 11.) Here, Appellants do not identify elements that are not taught by the cited references. Accordingly, we interpret this to mean that Appellants acknowledge that all elements are present in the references. As recognized by the Examiner, Mancini identifies that noise from wireless devices is a common problem in electronics and provides several solutions on how to deal with the issue of noise in a printed circuit board using operational amplifiers (Mancini 17-2; Ans. 4). Furthermore, the obviousness “analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103. One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which Appeal 2011-012704 Application 11/113,852 5 there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. Id. at 419-20. Mancini is a design reference for operational amplifiers and recognizes that these amplifiers have many uses in today’s electronics. “The op amp has truly become the universal analog IC [non-integrated circuit] because it performs all analog tasks. It can function as a line driver, comparator (one bit A/D), amplifier, level shifter, oscillator, filter, signal conditioner, actuator driver, current source, voltage source, and many other applications.” (Mancini 1-3.) The Examiner further acknowledges that: Although Mancini does not explicitly teach the feature wherein the audio circuitry and PCB [printed circuit board] is implemented in a PC speaker with a power amplifier, Advanic teaches a USB speaker (Advanic, pg. 1, Applications section) with RF filters for a loudspeaker driver (Advanic, pg. 1, Note6) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art [to] implement the audio circuitry of Mancini in the USB speaker of Advanic in order to reduce RF interference since it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. (Ans. 6-7.) According to the Examiner “Mancini and Advanic both teach audio amplifier circuits employing the same RF interference reductions techniques as disclosed by appellant (i.e. shunt capacitor, serial inductor, and ferrite beads). Additionally, Mancini teaches a Faraday cage (i.e. RF shield formed from metal or other electrically conductive material) physically surrounding the components of an audio circuit.” (Ans. 18.) We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that The results of connecting various well known RF filters (ferrite beads, serial inductors, and shunt capacitors, Mancini, Appeal 2011-012704 Application 11/113,852 6 pg. 17-23, § 17.6), tuned for RF frequency rejection, in series with various circuit wires or traces in various configurations of audio amplifiers and audio output devices as claimed is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2141 (I). (Ans. 7.) Appellants contend that Advanic teaches a “self[-]contained audio amplifier integrated circuit that has its own fully satisfactory approach that uses a reduced or minimum number of components” (App. Br. 13-14). Thus, according to Appellants, “Advanic teaches away from a combination with Mancini, as a combination would increase board size and decrease battery life” (id. at 14). Appellants, also contend that “Advanic teaches that for further noise reduction, LC or ferrite bead filters should be used.” (Id. at 13.) Therefore, according to Appellants the ordinary artisan would not be motivated to add “an operational amplifier, in particular, a dual operational amplifier, will add interference” (id. at 15.) We are not persuaded. “The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, each reference “must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.” See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The art recognizes that the operational amplifiers “can function as a line driver, comparator (one bit A/D), amplifier, level shifter, oscillator, filter, signal conditioner, actuator driver, current source, voltage source, and Appeal 2011-012704 Application 11/113,852 7 many other applications” (Mancini 1-3). We agree with the Examiner’s position that even if there are some disadvantages of the proposed combination, as alleged by Appellants, the evidence or record would not have [P]revented one of ordinary skill in the art from recognizing the suitability of implementing the audio operational amplifier of Mancini in the USB speaker disclosed by Advanic to create a computer speaker with improved RF immunity and the predictable results obtained therefrom or -otherwise discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from making the proposed combination. (Ans. 12.) We conclude that the evidence cited by the Examiner supports a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1, and Appellants have not provided sufficient rebuttal evidence or evidence of secondary considerations that outweighs the evidence supporting the prima facie case. As Appellants do not argue the claims separately, claims 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-22 fall with claim 1. Additionally, claim 6 has not been argued separately, and falls with claim 1 as acknowledged by the Appellants (App. Br. 16). SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over the Mancini in view of the Advanic. We affirm the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over the Mancini in view of Advanic in further view of Böhnke. Appeal 2011-012704 Application 11/113,852 8 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation