Jerry Moro

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 2019

14605111 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)

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. 14/605,111 01/26/2015 Jerry Moro HARM 0225 PUS 9603 109676 7590 12/02/2019 Brooks Kushman P.C./Harman 1000 Town Center Twenty Second Floor Southfield, MI 48075 EXAMINER EASON, MATTHEW A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2019 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JERRY MORO Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, AND CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, 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 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Harman International Industries, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a vented loudspeaker system with a duct for cooling of internal components. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A loudspeaker system, comprising: an enclosure; a transducer mounted within a front portion of the enclosure; a port provided in the enclosure, the port having an inlet located at an external surface of a rear portion of the enclosure opposite the transducer, and an outlet located in an interior of the enclosure which allow bi-directional air flow in and out of the enclosure; and at least one duct provided in the port to extract air flow from the port and redirect the air flow within the enclosure. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Pollet US 5,179,595 Jan. 12, 1993 Parker US 2005/0094837 A1 May 5, 2005 Polk US 2004/0131219 A1 Jul. 8, 2004 Ouweltjes US 2012/0033843 A1 Feb. 9, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1–2 and 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Polk. Final Act. 4. Claims 5–8, 11–12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Polk in view of Ouweltjes. Final Act. 5. Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 3 Claims 3–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Polk and in view of Pollet. Final Act. 7. Claims 13–14, 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Polk in view of Ouweltjes and in view of Pollet. Final Act. 8. OPINION We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). 1. Claims 1–2 and 9–10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Parker in view Polk. Appellant argues that Polk does not teach or suggest a port having an inlet located at an external surface of a rear portion of the enclosure opposite the transducer, and an outlet located in an interior of the enclosure as claimed. Appeal Br. 5. According to Appellant, the combination of Parker and Polk does not teach all of the elements of independent claim 1, and as such the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. We do not agree. In its explanation of Parker and Polk disclosures, Appellant omits to discuss the Examiner’s rejection that addresses Parker’s Figure 4C. See Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Parker teaches a loudspeaker Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 4 system (10), comprising: an enclosure (12); a transducer (14) mounted within a front portion of the enclosure; a port (16) provided in the enclosure, the port having an inlet (16o) located at an external surface of a rear portion of the enclosure opposite the transducer (see FIG. 4C), and an outlet (16i) located in an interior of the enclosure which allow bi-directional air flow in and out of the enclosure (see para. 31). The modified Figure 2 of Parker as indicated below shows an enclosure 12 having a port (16) provided in the enclosure, the port having an inlet (16o) and an outlet (16i) located in an interior of the enclosure which allows bi-directional air flow in and out of the enclosure (12). As compared to Appellant’s Figure 1, Parker’s Figure 2 shows the port 16 being located on the same side of the enclosure as opposed to the opposite side of the enclosure of Appellant’s Figure 1. FIG. 2 of Parker shows port 16 and transducer 14 and FIG. 1 of the current Specification shows port 50 and transducer 14. Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 5 The Examiner then relied on Parker’s Figure 4C, reproduced below, showing the port 16 located on the opposite side of the enclosure from transducer 14 as an alternative arrangement of the port and the transducer similar to Appellant’s FIG. 1. See Ans. 9–10. Parker’s modified Figure 4C shows the port 16 located on the opposite side of the enclosure from transducer 14.2 The Examiner relied on Polk for teaching at least one duct (420, shown in modified Polk’s FIG. 4 below with walls 424, 426) provided in the 2 The Examiner appears to have modified Parker’s FIG. 4C upside down to allow for a better comparison with Appellant’s FIG. 1. It is presented here in the same orientation to allow for an easier comparison. Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 6 port (404, 408) to extract air flow from the port and redirect the air flow within the enclosure 400. Ans. 9–10 (citing para. 25). Modified Figure 4 of Polk indicates duct 420 to extract air flow from the port (404, 408) into the enclosure 400. Appellant further argues that Polk does not cure the deficiencies of Parker because Polk teaches a port structure with two outside openings 406, 410 on an exterior of the enclosure 400. Appeal Br. 4. Polk’s duct 420 is similar to the ducts 70a and 70b in port 50 of Appellant’s Figure 1. Furthermore, the opening 406 and 410 are not on the exterior of enclosure 400 because the enclosure 400 extends below the port, and thus it is not external to the enclosure 400 but rather traverses within the enclosure. The Examiner relied on Parker for the port having an inlet (16o) and an outlet Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 7 (16i) located in an interior of the enclosure which allows bi-directional air flow in and out of the enclosure (12). Polk was relied on for the teaching of a duct on a port structure. In essence, Appellant’s arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”) (Citations omitted). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejection of claims 2 and 9–10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Parker in view Polk not separately argued. 2. Claims 5-8, 11-12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Parker in view of Polk and further in view Ouwelties. The Examiner relies on Ouweltjes for teaching a conduit (see Ouweltjes’ FIG. 1, element 115) operably connected between the at least one duct (see Polk’s FIG. 5, element 420) and an internal component of the loudspeaker system (Ouweltjes’ FIG. 1, diaphragm 103), wherein the internal component includes a transducer voice coil (Ouweltjes’ FIG. 1, element 111), a motor assembly (Ouweltjes’ FIG. 1, element 109) having a top plate with a channel (Ouweltjes’ FIG. 1, element 117), and the conduit is connected to the top plate channel to provide convective cooling for the transducer voice coil (see abstract), and the internal component includes an amplifier (Ouweltjes’ FIGig. 2, element 205). See Final Act. 5–6. The Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 8 Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to integrate the conduit of Ouweltjes with the loudspeaker of Parker and Polk for the purpose of allowing simultaneous sound production and an acoustic air flow generation while maintaining an efficient decoupling between the two functionalities (see Ouweltjes’ abstract). Id. at 6. Appellant argues that there is no motivation, suggestion, or any other reason to attempt to combine the opening 420 of Polk with the conduit 115 of Ouweltjes because Polk’s opening 420 is intended to vent into the enclosure 400 (see Polk, para. 27), and Ouweltjes’ conduit 115 is meant to extend out the enclosure to allow the generated air jet to be directed towards outside elements (see Ouweltjes para. 97). In response, the Examiner makes a broad assertion that adjustability involves routine skill in the art. See Ans. 11–12. Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s suggestion for the proposed modification in the prior art does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In the instant case, the Examiner does not articulate a rationale underpinning of how the inlet 420 that is intended to vent air into the disclosure 400 would be further modified by Ouweltjes’ teachings in order for a conduit operably connected between the duct outlet and an internal component of the loudspeaker system to redirect the air flow from the port for cooling of the internal component as required by claim 11. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 and for the same reasons the rejection of claims 5–8, 12, and 15 rejected under Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 9 35 U.S.C. § 103. 3. Claims 3–4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Parker in view of Polk and further in view of Pollet. Appellant argues that Pollet’s conduit 7 is annular and cannot be characterized as a NACA duct as claimed, nor is there any disclosed applicability of Pollet’s conduit to a ported enclosure and the Examiner does not address Pollet’s deficiencies. Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner responds that an ordinary skilled person in the art would understand such disclosure of Pollet essentially has the same functionality as the claimed description of NACA ducts in claims 3–4. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not articulate a rationale underpinning of how Pollet’s conduit 7 would be characterized as a NACA duct. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 4. Claims 13–14 and 16–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Parker in view of Polk in view of Ouwelties and further in view of Pollet Appellant argues, similarly to claims 3–4 above that Pallet’s conduit 7 is annular, and cannot be characterized as a NACA duct as claimed, nor is there any disclosed applicability of Pollet’s conduit to a ported enclosure. Appeal Br. 9. We agree with Appellant’s argument for the same reason as articulated above with respect to claims 3 and 4, and thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–14 and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 10 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are Affrmed-In-Part. More specifically, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–2 and 9–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–5 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–2 , 9–10 103 Parker in view Polk. 1–2, 9–10 5–8, 11–12, 15 103 Parker in view of Polk and further in view Ouwelties. 5–8, 11– 12, 15 3–4 103 Parker in view of Polk and further in view of Pollet. 3–4 13–14, 16–20 103 Parker in view of Polk in view of Ouwelties and further in view of Pollet. 13–14, 16– 20 Overall Outcome: 1–2, 9–10 3–5, 11–20 Appeal 2018-004682 Application 14/605,111 11 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-IN-PART