Ex Parte Nicholson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

13612822 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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.
13/612,822 09/12/2012 Travis E. Nicholson H-12-111-USC 2813
71016 7590
Bose Corporation
Patent Group
Mountain Road, MS 3B1
Framingham, MA 01701
03/29/2017 EXAMINER
PATEL, YOGESHKUMAR G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
docket @ bose. com
designs @ bose. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TRAVIS E. NICHOLSON, PAUL WARREN,
STEPHEN J. MAGUIRE, TOMMY MARINCIC, and LESLIE L. SCOTT
Appeal 2016-0082631
Application 13/612,822
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Bose Corporation.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-008263
Application 13/612,822
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention “relates to audio devices and in particular to a
portable loudspeaker including a cover.” (Sept. 12, 2012 Specification
(“Spec.”) 12.) Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below (with
minor reformatting):
1. A portable loudspeaker, comprising:
an electro-acoustic driver which creates sound waves
when operated;
a housing having a front side to which the driver is secured
and a supporting base;
a battery supported by the housing for providing electrical
power to the driver;
a cover secured to the housing and comprising an upper
portion and a lower portion, the cover being configured to move
between (i) a closed position in which the upper and lower
portions overlie the driver, and (ii) an open position in which the
upper and lower portions do not overlie the driver and are
substantially disposed under the supporting base; and
a controller for controlling operation of the loudspeaker,
wherein when the cover is moved to the closed position a feature
on the cover causes an indication to the controller that the cover
is in the closed position, and wherein in response to said
indication, the controller mutes the driver if the driver was
outputting acoustic waves when the cover was moved to the
closed position.
2
Appeal 2016-008263
Application 13/612,822
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Beppu US 5,621,804 Apr. 15, 1997
Uda US 2003/0008689 Al Jan. 9, 2003
Ishida US 2004/0102211 Al May 27, 2004
Schul et al.
(“Schul”) US 2007/0076911 Al Apr. 5, 2007
Jacob et al.
(“Jacob”)
US 8,126,180 B2 Feb. 28, 2012
Kennedy et al.
(“Kennedy”)
US 2012/0072752 Al Mar. 22, 2012
Slotta US 2013/0032432 Al Feb. 7,2013
Claims 1—5, 11—15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schul, in view of Slotta and Uda, and further in
view of Kennedy. (See Final Office Action (mailed June 17, 2015) (“Final
Act.”) 2-7.)
Claims 6, 7, 9, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schul, in view of Slotta, Uda, and Kennedy, and
further in view of Jacob. (See Final Act. 7—10.)
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schul, in view of Slotta, Uda, Kennedy, and Jacob, and
further in view of Beppu. (See Final Act. 10—11.)
3
Appeal 2016-008263
Application 13/612,822
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schul, in view of Slotta, Uda, and Kennedy, and further in
view of Ishida. (See Final Act. 11—12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 6—10. We are persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2—5 and 11—20.
Claims 1 and 6—10
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Schul fails to teach or
suggest “a cover secured to the housing and comprising an upper portion and
a lower portion, the cover being configured to move between . . .,
[hjowever, Slotta teaches A COVER SECURED TO THE HOUSING
comprising an upper portion and a lower portion.” (Final Act. 3.)
According to the Examiner, “it would have been obvious to someone of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
teachings of Schul’s cover to open and close into the teachings of Slotta[’s
cover, which as a upper portion and a lower portion,] so that the cover can
fold at the hinge to support the audio reproduction system.” (Ans. 14.)
Figures 6 and 14 of Schul are reproduced below.
4
Appeal 2016-008263
Application 13/612,822
Figure 6 depicts “a rear isometric view of a preferred embodiment of the
invention when closed.” (Schul 122.) Figure 14 depicts “a front isometric
view of a preferred embodiment of the invention when open.” (Schul 130.)
Figure 14 of Slotta is reproduced below.
Figure 14 of Slotta depicts “a perspective view . . . with the movable cover
illustrated in a use position.” (Slotta 118.) Appellants contend that “while
5
Appeal 2016-008263
Application 13/612,822
Slotta does disclose a hinged cover panel.. . that cover panel is configured
to protect the display screen of the device, not the audio driver[, therefore, it]
would render Schul unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” (App. Br. 5—6.)
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred because it is Schul,
rather than Slotta, that teaches or suggests a “Cover 175 over acoustic
drivers 160 and 165” (i.e., speakers), which when closed would “overlie the
driver.” (Final Act. 3; Schul, FIGs. 6 and 14.) Appellants also contend that:
Replacing Schul’s cover with the cover 191 of Slotta would seem
to eliminate much of the functionality that makes Schul’s
portable system capable of operating as an audio reproduction
system, since all that would be left is the speakers with no means
of powering, no means of coupling to an audio device, no volume
control. As such, the proposed modification (i.e., “The cover, as
taught by Schul, can be replaced with the cover, as taught by
Slotta[” (Ans. 14)]) would render Schul unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose.”
(Reply 2.) We do not agree with Appellants that the Examiner is advocating
swapping the cover in Schul with the cover in Slotta. Instead, we understand
the Examiner’s rejection to mean incorporating the concept of a cover with
upper and lower portions and a cover that can fold at the hinge to support the
portable device or to open the device in different positions, as taught in
Slotta, into the cover in Schul. This understanding is confirmed by the rest
of the sentences in the Examiner’s Answer that are truncated by Appellants:
The cover, as taught by Schul, can be replaced with the cover, as
taught by Slotta, to open the audio reproduction system of Schul
in different positions so as to playback audio and close the cover
to stop playback of audio. Therefore it would have been obvious
to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to modify the teachings of Schul’s cover to open and
close into the teachings of Slotta to replace it with the cover panel
so that the cover can fold at the hinge to support the audio
reproduction system.
6
Appeal 2016-008263
Application 13/612,822
(Ans. 14, emphases added.) Therefore, while the Examiner uses the term
“replace,” we understand the Examiner’s rejection as modifying Schul’s
cover with the teaching in Slotta (a cover with upper and lower portions that
can fold at the hinge to support the portable device or to open the device in
different positions).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Schul and Uda teaches or
suggests “a controller for controlling operation of the loudspeaker, wherein
when the cover is moved to the closed position a feature on the cover causes
an indication to the controller that the cover is in the closed position . . . .”
(Final Act. 4.) Appellants contend that one of ordinary skilled in the art
would not “move the loudspeaker 12 of Uda from its position shown in
F[igure] 1 to an alternative position in which the loudspeaker 12 is covered
up when the wireless portable terminal device (WPTD) is in a folded status”
because paragraph 33 of Uda states that the “loudspeaker 12 is normally
used for outputting an amplified sound such as a ring tone.” (App. Br. 6—7;
Uda 133.) According to Appellants, “a user would be unable to hear the
ring tone, particularly if the folded WPTD was, for example, across the room
from the user.” (App. Br. 5—6.) Therefore, the proposed modification would
render Schul unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. {Id. at 6.)
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that a ring tone can still be heard from the
hands-free headset 13 when loudspeaker 12 is folded or via the amplifying
loudspeaker. (Ans. 15—16.) For example, paragraph 32 of Uda teaches or
suggests that the amplifying loudspeaker can output amplified sound such as
a ring tone in folded status and paragraph 63 of Uda teaches or suggests that
sound output can be switched from the amplifying loudspeaker to a
7
Appeal 2016-008263
Application 13/612,822
connected hands-free headset. (Id.) Appellants do not respond to the
Examiner’s detailed findings and Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error.
Appellants also contend that “Schul fails to disclose ‘a passive
radiator which can be energized from the sound waves’ at paragraph 0042 or
anyway in the reference. Instead, Schul discloses a portable audio
reproduction system including speakers 160 and 165.” Independent claim
20 recites a loudspeaker and contains limitations similar to claim 1. Claim
20 also recites the limitation at issue.2 The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that the combination of Schul and Jacob teaches or suggests this limitation.
(Final Act. 9.) Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that
Schul at paragraph 42 teaches or suggests “an amplifier [that] converts the
audio signals from audio device 170 into a signal capable of driving
speakers 160 and 165 [while] Jacob teaches passive radiator.” (Id.)
According to the Examiner, “[c]laims 1, 37, and 39 of Schul discloses at
least one speaker driver for reproducing sound [waves] to teach an
electroacoustic driver which creates sound waves” that can be used to
energize the passive radiator in Jacob. (Ans. 14—15.) Appellants do not
respond to the Examiner’s specific findings. Moreover, “[o]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” See In re Keller, 642
2 Appellants do not state which claim they are addressing with regard to this
argument but because claim 20 is the only claim that contains this limitation,
we assume that Appellants are addressing this claim.
8
Appeal 2016-008263
Application 13/612,822
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us
of Examiner error.3
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of
claim 1, as well as claims 6—19, which are not argued separately. (App. Br.
8.)
Claims 2—5 and 11—20
Claim 2 further recites “the controller is configured to mute the driver
for a set time period.” Claim 11 contains the following limitation: “in
response to said indication, an audio connection between the receiver and
the audio source device is maintained between the receiver and the audio
source device for a set time period.” Independent claim 20 contains a
similar limitation.4 The Examiner finds that Kennedy teaches or suggests
these limitations. (Final Act. 5, 10.) The Examiner explains that Kennedy at
paragraph 20 “teaches when a Tid closed’ status message is received . . .,
the device would mute the audio [and after] the system powers-off non-
essential components^] the audio would respond within 2 seconds to the lid-
open detection.” (Ans. 16.) We agree with Appellants that the cited
portions of Kennedy do not teach or suggest that after the cover is closed,
the driver is muted for a set time period (claim 2) or an audio connection is
maintained for a set timer period (claims 11 and 20). (Reply 4.)
3 However for the reasons discussed below, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 20.
4 Appellants do not list claim 20 in arguing this issue (see App. Br. 7-8;
Reply 4), but because claim 20 contains a similar limitation as claim 11, we
also address claim 20 in our analysis.
9
Appeal 2016-008263
Application 13/612,822
swus
SQ'TjfK-ATlON
KSTWORK
STATIST
SET -SYSTEM TO
BAirjfW t«=s S&& TWO
SfcCQNLiS tttffttQW
CAPA91MTV
RfCfJvt: T.S5S OWjN*
NOTsFKAT$C»!
l&'TOCAK
s CAW&£
X. STATES* .
KKlvFrv TO >1QhK