Ex Parte Sapiejewski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2017

14215629 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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.
14/215,629 03/17/2014 Roman Sapiejewski N-14-161-US 1079
71016 7590
Bose Corporation
Patent Group
Mountain Road, MS 3B1
Framingham, MA 01701
EXAMINER
PRITCHARD, JASMINE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2017 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 ROMAN SAPIEJEWSKI, MARK BERGERON,
and
MIHIR D. SHETYE
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,6291
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1—25, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.2
1 Appellants identify Bose Corporation as the real party in interest. (Br. 1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 17, 2014,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed May 19, 2016, the Appeal
Brief (“Br.”) filed October 18, 2016, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed January 13, 2017.
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to “headsets with linearized pressure
equalization ports characterized by an acoustic impedance with a very low
resistive component.” (Spec. 12.) In one example, Appellants’ headset
includes at least one ear cup having front and rear cavities separated by a
driver, the cup including a pressure equalization port coupling the front
cavity to space outside the cup. (Abstract.) The pressure equalization port is
“significantly longer than it is wide, providing a principally reactive acoustic
impedance, such that the pressure response of the front cavity including the
port to signals input via the driver may be effectively linear over a wide
range of pressure levels within the front cavity.” (Abstract.)
Claims 1,11, and 19 are independent. Claims 1 and 19, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A headset comprising,
at least one ear cup having front and rear cavities
separated by a driver,
the cup comprising a pressure equalization port coupling
the front cavity to space outside the cup,
the pressure equalization port having an effective cross-
sectional area greater than 2 mm2 and being significantly longer
than it is wide, providing a principally reactive acoustic
impedance,
such that the pressure response of the front cavity
including the port is effectively linear over a wide range of
pressure levels within the front cavity.
19. An apparatus comprising:
a first ear cup shell of a headphone,
a second ear cup shell of the headphone,
an electroacoustic driver disposed between the first and
2
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
second ear cup shells, such that the first ear cup shell and a first
face of the driver define a front cavity, and the second ear cup
shell and a second face of the driver define a rear cavity, and
a metal tube at least 15 mm in length and having an
internal bore with an effective cross-sectional area of at least
1.75 mm2, providing a principally reactive acoustic impedance,
the metal tube seated in the first ear cup shell and
coupling the front cavity to space around the apparatus.
(Br. 10—12 (Claims App’x).)
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 4, 5, and 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) based on Sibbald et al. (US 2010/0080400 Al,
published Apr. 1, 2010, “Sibbald”). (Final Act. 14—16.)
(2) Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sibbald. (Final Act. 17—18.)
(3) Claims 3, 6—8 and 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sibbald and Donaldson et al. (US 2009/0161885
Al, published June 25, 2009, “Donaldson”). (Final Act. 18—24.)
(4) Claims 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Howes et al. (US 2013/0343593 Al, published Dec.
26, 2013, “Howes”) and Gorike (US 4,160,135, issued July 3, 1979). (Final
Act. 24—32.)
(5) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Howes, Gorike, and Sibbald. (Final Act. 32—33.)
(6) Claims 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Howes, Gorike, and Donaldson. (Final Act. 33—36.)
3
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3—8, and 10
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
the cup comprising a pressure equalization port coupling
the front cavity to space outside the cup,
the pressure equalization port having an effective cross-
sectional area greater than 2 mm2 and being significantly longer
than it is wide, providing a principally reactive acoustic
impedance,
such that the pressure response of the front cavity
including the port is effectively linear over a wide range of
pressure levels within the front cavity.
(Br. 10 (Claims App’x).)
The Examiner finds that Sibbald discloses all the structural limitations
of claim 1. Particularly, the Examiner finds Sibbald’s ear-worn speaker
carrying device (ESD), shown in Figure 2, teaches a headset comprising an
ear cup having a front cavity (frontal volume between ear and loudspeaker
30) and a rear cavity (52), as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 14—15 (citing
Sibbald Tflf 30, 45 46, Figs. 2—6).) The Examiner further finds Sibbald’s cup
includes an acoustic leakage channel—composed of Sibbald’s frontal
conduit 40 and front emission port 42—that forms a pressure equalization
port coupling the front cavity to space outside the cup, as recited in claim 1.
(Final Act. 15 (citing Sibbald Tflf 45, 94, 103—104, Fig. 2).) The Examiner
additionally finds Sibbald’s pressure equalization port has an effective cross-
sectional area greater than 2 mm2 and is significantly longer than it is wide.
(Final Act. 15 (citing Sibbald Tflf 74, 76—81, Abstract, Figs. 2 and 9—11).)
The Examiner regards the limitations requiring “a principally reactive
acoustic impedance, such that the pressure response of the front cavity
including the port is effectively linear over a wide range of pressure levels
4
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
within the front cavity” to be functional limitations, and finds that Sibbald’s
pressure equalization port (leakage channel with conduit 40 and front
emission port 42) is capable of performing the claimed functions. (Final
Act. 15; Ans. 25-27.)
For example, Bo’s Figure 2 is reproduced below with annotations to
indicate certain features.
Sibbald’s Figure 2 shows a cross-sectional view of an ear-worn speaker
carrying device (ESD) in a supra-aural headphone format.
(Sibbald H 17,45.)
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that Sibbald’s acoustic
leakage channel provides a “principally reactive acoustic impedance,” as
required by claim 1. (Br. 3 4.) Appellants assert “Sibbald is silent about the
impedance of the channel” or “about any port ‘providing a principally
reactive acoustic impedance’.” (Br. 3.) Therefore, Appellants argue Sibbald
does not teach a pressure equalization port, as claimed. (Br. 3 4.)
Appellants also argue “Sibbald is silent about ‘the pressure response of the
front cavity including the port’ being ‘effectively linear over a wide range of
5
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
pressure levels within the front cavityas Sibbald does not measure “the
impact its proposed design will have on linearity” by “applying differing
input signal levels and measuring the resulting pressure at a point of interest
within the headset” as does Appellants’ invention. (Br. 3^4 (citing Spec.
1120,38, Figs. 13-14).)
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Sibbald
anticipates claim 1. In particular, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in finding that Sibbald’s pressure equalization port (leakage channel
including conduit 40 and front emission port 42) provides a principally
reactive acoustic impedance and a pressure response that is effectively linear
over a wide range of pressure levels within the front cavity. Particularly, the
Examiner finds an effectively linear pressure response and a principally
reactive acoustic impedance “is the result of the pressure equalization port
having an effective cross-sectional area greater than 2 mm2 and being
significantly longer than it is wide,” as evidenced by Appellants’
Specification. (Ans. 25—27 (citing Spec. 123, Fig. 10); see also Final Act.
4—5.) The Examiner then finds Sibbald’s pressure equalization port/leakage
channel is structurally equivalent to the claimed pressure equalization port
because Sibbald’s port has an effective cross-sectional area greater than 2
mm2 and is significantly longer than it is wide. (Ans. 25—26 (citing Sibbald
Fig. 2); Final Act. 15 (citing Sibbald 176).)
Appellants provide mere attorney argument, without evidence
rebutting the Examiner’s findings that, based on Sibbald’s leakage channel
dimensions (see Sibbald 176, Fig. 2), it is impossible for Sibbald’s leakage
channel to provide a principally reactive acoustic impedance and an
effectively linear pressure response over a wide range of pressure levels
6
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
within the front cavity. (See App. Br. 3 4.) Conversely, the Examiner’s
explanation (based on similarity of structure) supports these findings.
Appellants’ Specification indicates that the claimed dimensions of the
pressure equalization port result in the claimed principally reactive acoustic
impedance and the effectively linear pressure response, by decreasing the
attendant resistive component of the port’s impedance. (See Spec. ]Hf 19, 21,
23.) As the Examiner finds, Sibbald teaches this same port structure that
performs the same function. (Ans. 25—27.) In summary, and based on the
record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1 as anticipated by Sibbald and therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 4, 5, and
10. (Br. 3.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to independent
claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 10. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue dependent claims 3 and 6—8 based on their
dependency from claim 1, and additionally argue Donaldson does not cure
the alleged deficiencies of Sibbald. (Br. 5.) Because we find Sibbald is not
deficient, Donaldson is not needed to cover any deficiency, and therefore we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 6—8.
Claim 2
With respect to dependent claim 2 (reciting “the range of pressure
levels within the front cavity comprise sound pressure levels between about
120 dB SPL and 150 dB SPL”), Appellants argue Sibbald does not disclose
a driver producing a “range of sound pressure levels within the front cavity
7
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
range from 120 dB SPL to 150 db SPL,” and does not teach “maintain[ing] a
linear output up to those sound pressure levels.” (Br. 4.)
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because Sibbald discloses a
high-compliance driver, and Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s
reasonable finding that “producing sound pressure levels between 120dB to
150 dB, within the front cavity of Sibbald’s headset, is no more than routine
experimentation.” (Ans. 27—28 (citing Sibbald 175).)
Additionally, as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we agree
with the Examiner Sibbald teaches the structure of claim 1, and this structure
permits a pressure response that is effectively linear over a wide range of
pressure levels within a front cavity. We additionally note claim 2 does not
require the pressure equalization port to “maintain a linear output up to
those sound pressure levels” as Appellants advocate (see Br. 4 (emphasis
added)); rather, claim 2 (via claim 1) merely requires an “effectively linear”
pressure response, and does not specify what would fall outside the claimed
“effectively linear” requirement.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, the Examiner finds heat-staking is a well-
known technique for “joining two or more parts where at least one of the
parts is made out of plastic,” and “the use of the known technique of heat-
staking parts for the Sibbald headset would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art with the desire to connect parts as is typically done.”
(Ans. 28—29; Final Act. 18 (citing Sibbald 145, Figs. 2—6).)
8
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
Appellants argue “[o]ther than conclusory statements that heat-staking
is a ‘known technique, ’ the Office Action does not specifically point to any
portion of the cited references that allegedly discloses these features, or
provide any explanation of how any cited art anticipates or renders obvious”
claim 19. (Br. 5.) We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, which
do not address the Examiner’s findings that heat-staking is common
knowledge and well-known in the art, as evidenced by, e.g., U.S. Patent
8,670,586 B1 (issued March 11, 2014, to Boyle et al.). (Ans. 29.)3 Thus, we
agree with the Examiner “the use of the known technique of heat-staking
would have yielded [the] predictable results of adjoining two or more parts
together” as claim 9 recites. (Final Act. 18.)
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 9.
Claims 11—18
Independent claim 11 recites, inter alia:
at least one ear cup having a front cavity and rear cavity
with front cavity and rear cavity compliances respectively,
a high compliance driver between the front and rear
cavities with a driver compliance that is greater than the rear
cavity compliance,
the ear cup comprising a mass port and a resistive port
connected to the rear cavity in parallel and a pressure
equalization port connected to the front cavity,
the pressure equalization port having an effective cross-
sectional area greater than 1.75 mm2 and being significantly
longer than it is wide, providing a principally reactive acoustic
impedance,
3 See also the description of heat-staking at
https://en.wikipedia.orAwiki/Staking (manufacturing).
9
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
such that the pressure response of the front cavity
including the port to signals input via the driver is effectively
linear over a wide range of pressure levels within the front
cavity,
and an active noise reduction system coupled to the driver.
(Br. 11 (Claims App’x).)
The Examiner finds Howes’ earphone comprises a front cavity (420)
and rear cavity (422) inside a housing (102). (Final Act. 24 (citing Howes
Figs. 3- 7).) The Examiner further finds Howes’ acoustic duct (704), bass
port (518), tuning output port (532), and tuning port (514) teach a mass port
and a resistive port connected to the rear cavity in parallel, as recited in
claim 11. (Final Act. 24—25 (citing Howes Figs 5—8).) The Examiner also
finds Howes’ secondary output opening (110) of the earphone’s housing
(102) teaches a pressure equalization port connected to the front cavity, the
pressure equalization port having an effective cross-sectional area greater
than 1.75 mm2 and providing a principally reactive acoustic impedance, as
required by claim 11. (Final Act. 25 (citing Howes Tflf 23—30, Figs 4—8).)
The Examiner acknowledges Howes does not teach an ear cup as claimed,
but relies on Gorike’s earphone with a circum-aural ear cushion for this
feature. (Final Act. 25 (citing Gorike 3:10-11, 4:61—62, Figs, la and 6—7).)
The Examiner further acknowledges Howes does not teach the
claimed pressure equalization port being significantly longer than it is wide,
but finds such port dimensions would be obtained by routine
experimentation and optimization of Howes. (Final Act. 28—29; see also
Ans. 30 (citing Howes 124).)
Appellants argue Howes is silent regarding a pressure equalization
port significantly longer than it is wide and providing a principally reactive
10
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
acoustic impedance, as claim 11 recites. (Br. 6.) We agree with Appellants
Howes does not teach or suggest a pressure equalization port as claimed.
Particularly, Howes’ secondary output opening 110 is just an opening for
venting the ear canal to the external environment outside of the earphone,
and this opening is not significantly longer than it is wide. (Br. 6; see
Howes 23, 26.) Rather, Howes’ opening 110 appears to be wider than it
is long. (See Howes Figures 3, 4, and 6C.) Thus, Howes does not teach or
suggest a pressure equalization port significantly longer than it is wide for
providing a principally reactive acoustic impedance, as required by claim 11.
(Br. 6.) The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Gorike make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Howes.
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
rejection of claim 11, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
11,4 We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
4 In the event of any further prosecution, we suggest the Examiner consider
the relevancy of Sibbald (instead of Howes) to claim 11 ’s limitation of “the
pressure equalization port having an effective cross-sectional area greater
than 1.75 mm2 and being significantly longer than it is wide, providing a
principally reactive acoustic impedance.” As discussed supra with respect
to claim 1, Sibbald teaches a “pressure equalization port having an effective
cross-sectional area greater than 2 mm2 and being significantly longer than it
is wide, providing a principally reactive acoustic impedance.” With respect
to claim 12 (depending from claim 11), we note although the Examiner has
in fact cited Sibbald against claim 12, the Examiner still relies on Howes for
the limitations of base claim 11 incorporated into claim 12 (see Final Act.
32—33). However, as discussed supra with respect to claim 11, we do not
agree with the Examiner that the skilled artisan would modify Howes to
have a pressure equalization port significantly longer than it is wide, since
Howes’ port (110) is configured to be wider than it is long. (See Howes
Figures 3, 4, and 6C.)
11
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
12—18.5
Claims 19—25
Independent claim 19 recites, inter alia:
a metal tube at least 15 mm in length and having an
internal bore with an effective cross-sectional area of at least
1.75 mm2, providing a principally reactive acoustic impedance,
the metal tube seated in the first ear cup shell and
coupling the front cavity to space around the apparatus.
(Br. 12 (Claims App’x).)
The Examiner finds Sibbald’s conduit (40) teaches a tube seated in a
first ear cup shell (34, 36), the tube having an internal bore with an effective
cross-sectional area of at least 1.75 mm2 and providing a principally reactive
acoustic impedance, as recited in claim 19. (Final Act. 19-20 (citing
Sibbald H 45, 77, 81, 94, 103-104, Fig. 2-6, Abstract).)
The Examiner acknowledges Sibbald does not teach “the tube is a
metal tube at least 15 mm in length, wherein the metal tube is made of
stainless steel,” but relies on Donaldson for teaching “a metal tube.” (Final
Act. 20 (citing Donaldson || 49, 70, 72, Figs. 2—4).) The Examiner also
takes Official Notice that “[i]t would require no more than ordinary skill and
5 In the event of any further prosecution, we suggest the Examiner consider
rejecting independent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite
and incomplete because the claim is unclear as to: (1) the structure or
arrangement that would achieve the claimed compliance relationship of “a
driver compliance that is greater than the rear cavity compliance;” and (2)
the metes and bounds of “significantly longer than it is wide.” Regarding
issue (2), it is unclear from the claim, for example, what length-width
relationship would produce a “significantly longer than it is wide” port, and
it is also unclear what length-width configurations would fall outside the
claimed “significantly longer than it is wide.”
12
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
common sense, to try a pressure equalization port comprising a tube of about
15 mm long within the scope of the Sibbald apparatus.” (Final Act. 21.)
Appellants argue the Examiner’s Official Notice is improper because
Sibbald is silent about a metal tube at least 15 mm in length providing a
principally reactive acoustic impedance, as claimed. (Br. 5—6.) Rather,
Sibbald merely teaches a 10 mm-long port, and is silent about length-
diameter relationships that would produce a principally reactive port/tube as
required by claim 19. (Br 6.) We agree with Appellants. The portions of
Sibbald relied upon by the Examiner teach 10 mm-long tubes with various
cross-sectional areas. (See Sibbald 176.) The Examiner has not shown,
however, nor have we found, that Sibbald suggests a tube of at least 15 mm
in length and having an internal bore with an effective cross-sectional area
of at least 1.75 mm2, providing a principally reactive acoustic impedance, as
recited in claim 19.
Donaldson does not cure the deficiencies of Sibbald as Donaldson
merely discloses a metallic earphone housing with a pipe-opening coupled to
a user’s ear canal, and Donaldson does not disclose pipes at least 15 mm in
length. (Br. 6; see Donaldson || 49, 70.) Further, the Examiner has not
responded to Appellants’ arguments in the Answer.
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
rejection of claim 19, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
19. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
20-25.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—10 is affirmed.
13
Appeal 2017-006332
Application 14/215,629
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11—25 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
14