Gary Fox

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2020

2019005545 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2020)

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.
14/968,782 12/14/2015 Gary Lloyd Fox FOX.GARY-LZ.001NP 9060
22252 7590 12/14/2020
Plager Schack LLP
Mark H. Plager
16152 BEACH BLVD.
SUITE 207
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647
EXAMINER
KURR, JASON R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2020 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):
lzpatents@plagerschack.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GARY LLOYD FOX
____________________

Appeal 2019-005545
Application 14/968,782
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–7. Appeal Br. 12–13. Claim 2
has been cancelled. Id. at 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor, Gary Lloyd
Fox. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005545
Application 14/968,782

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. An ultra-low distortion loudspeaker for reproducing audio
signals in response to line level signals, comprising:
[A.] 5 or more acoustic transducers, including:
[i.] a first acoustic transducer,
[ii.] a second acoustic transducer,
[iii.] and a third acoustic transducer,
[iv.] a fourth acoustic transducer, and
[v.] a fifth acoustic transducer;
[B.] one or more enclosures or baffles that support the
acoustic transducers;
[C.] a plurality of band-pass filters coupled to the 5 or more
acoustic transducers, including:
[i.] a first band-pass filter coupled to the first acoustic
transducer, the first band-pass filter configured to
output a first frequency band range through the first
acoustic transducer,
[ii.] a second band-pass filter coupled to the second
acoustic transducer, the second band-pass filter
configured to output a second frequency band
range through the second acoustic transducer,
wherein the second frequency range is discrete
from the first frequency range,
. . .
[v.] a fifth band-pass filter coupled to the fifth acoustic
transducer, the fifth band-pass filter configured to
output a fifth frequency band range through the
fifth acoustic transducer, wherein the fifth
frequency range is discrete from the first frequency
Appeal 2019-005545
Application 14/968,782

3
range, the second frequency range, the third
frequency range, and the fourth frequency range;
[D.] a plurality of power amplifiers positioned between the
plurality of bandpass filters and the 5 or more acoustic
transducers, wherein each acoustic transducer is
powered by a dedicated one of the plurality of power
amplifiers; and
[E.] an input interface for receiving the line level signals,
wherein line level signals are decomposed into discrete
frequency bands by the plurality of band-pass filters,
each discrete frequency band driving each dedicated
power amplifier.
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Bauer US 3,903,989 Sept. 9, 1975
Gundry US 3,921,104 Nov. 18, 1975
Modafferi US 4,771,466 Sept. 13, 1988

This Panel cites the following additional references:
Name Reference Date
Dahlquist US 3,824,343 July 16, 1974
Liang US 2004/0032964 A1 Feb. 19, 2004
Hamada US 2007/0248235 A1 Oct. 25, 2007
Froment US 9,276,541 B1 Mar. 1, 2016

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-005545
Application 14/968,782

4
REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 6, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Bauer and Modafferi. Final Act.
2–5.
Appellant argues patentability for claim 1. Appellant does not present
separate arguments for claim 6. We select claim 1 as the representative
claim for this rejection. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merits of the § 103(a) rejection of claim 6 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 3–5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Bauer, Modafferi, and Gundry.
Final Act. 5–8. Appellant does not present arguments for claims 3–5 and 7.
Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1.
Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 3–5 and 7 further herein.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellant’s conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Appeal 2019-005545
Application 14/968,782

5
A.1.a.
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
determining in-part, the following:
It would have been an obvious design choice to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to expand the loudspeaker system of
Bauer and Modafferi to include wherein the fifth acoustic
transducer outputs a fifth frequency range via a fifth band-pass
filter, where the fifth frequency range is discrete from the first
through fourth ranges. The motivation for doing so would have
to provide higher definition with reduced distortion by
segmenting the input audio line signal into narrower frequency
bands each dedicated to an audio driver.
Non-Final Act. 5.
A.1.b.
Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Office action did not provide evidence in Bauer or
Modaferri that showed a system was suggested that would have
worked equally as well with “a fifth acoustic transducer
output[ting] a fifth frequency range via a fifth band-pass filter,
where the fifth frequency range is discrete from the first through
fourth ranges” as required by the line of reasoning in Ex parte
Clapp [227 U.S.P.Q. 972 (BPAI 1985)]. Accordingly, the
burden of proof required to make such a rejection was not met.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-005545
Application 14/968,782

6
A.1.c.
In the Examiner’s Answer at pages 15–16, the Examiner responds at
length as to why Bauer or Modaferri provide evidence to show such a
system is suggested.
A.1.d.
Appellant does not file a Reply Brief to further dispute the Examiner’s
reasoning.
A.1.e.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. As previously noted,
we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief.
B.
Also, although not required for our decision, we provide further
evidence to show that contrary to Appellant’s argument, outputting a fifth
frequency range where the fifth frequency range is discrete from the first
through fourth ranges is a well-known design choice.
The media device 104 may also include one or more
output devices 208. These output devices may include one or
more of the speakers 110, display devices 208(1), haptic devices
208 (2), or other output devices 208(0). The one or more
speakers 110 may include one or more speakers configured to
generate sounds in particular ranges such as subwoofers,
woofers, midrange, tweeters, super tweeters, and so forth.
Froment, col. 5, ll. 16–24.
As best appreciated from an inspection of FIGS. 3 and 4,
the positions of the speakers are offset from one another in the
Appeal 2019-005545
Application 14/968,782

7
direction of the listening axis, with the woofer 24 being disposed
forwardly of the mid-range speaker 26, which is in turn disposed
forwardly as respects upper-mid-range driver 27, which is in turn
disposed forwardly of tweeter 28, which is in turn disposed
forwardly of super tweeter 29.
Dahlquist, col. 7, ll. 29–36.
As is known, the speakers 21–25 can be of any
frequencies, such as a tweeter, a super-tweeter, a squawker (or
midrange), a woofer and a subwoofer. The arrangement of the
frequency of these speakers is apparent to those having ordinary
in stereoscopic sound displaying field and is not part of the
novelty of the present invention.
Liang ¶ 19.
A case was described herein in which the controller device
2 included a woofer speaker 24 and a tweeter speaker 25, but the
controller device may also have three or more speakers.
Furthermore, the combination of speakers is not limited to this
option alone, and speakers having various frequency
characteristics may be arbitrarily combined, such as full-range
speakers, super woofers, woofers, squawkers, tweeters, super
tweeters, and the like.
Hamada ¶ 94.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3–7 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3–7 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.

Appeal 2019-005545
Application 14/968,782

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6 103(a) Bauer, Modafferi 1, 6
3–5, 7 103(a) Bauer, Modafferi,
Gundry
3–5, 7
Overall
Outcome

1, 3–7
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED