DELTA ELECTRONICS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

14755660 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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.
14/755,660 06/30/2015 Yuan-Chuan LIU 4459/1599PUS1 6877
60601 7590 03/03/2020
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
TREMARCHE, CONNOR J.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2020 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):
MAILROOM@MG-IP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUAN-CHUAN LIU and CHIH-HUA LIN
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, 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 1–18, 22, and 23. 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 Delta Electronics,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to a ventilation fan with speaker. Claims
1, 11, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the
claimed subject matter, with certain limitations italicized:
1. A ventilation fan, comprising:
a fan unit having an air inlet and an air outlet;
a cover disposed on the air inlet, wherein the cover has an
opening disposed corresponding to the air inlet;
a speaker directly and detachably disposed on the cover,
and disposed beside and outside the air inlet; and
an outer cap disposed on the air inlet, wherein the cover is
located between the fan unit and the outer cap, and the outer cap
has a plurality of through holes, wherein each of the through
holes is configured as both of an output channel of the speaker
and a ventilation channel, and the through holes communicate
with each other.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Liu US 5,448,495 Sept. 5, 1995
Waynick US 6,083,016 July 4, 2000
Li US 8,073,182 B2 Dec. 6, 2011
Massini US 9,508,337 B2 Nov. 29, 2016
Park US 2003/0235186 A1 Dec. 25, 2003
Slapak US 2010/0028134 A1 Feb. 4, 2010
Berkman US 2014/0177900 A1 June 26, 2014
Homewerks Worldwide,
Bluetooth Bath Fan
Installation Video
“Homewerks”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxnLxuEYLJY

July 24, 2013

Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–4 and 7–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Massini, Liu, and Berkman. Final Act. 2.
II. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Massini, Liu, Berkman, and Homewerks. Final Act. 6–7.
III. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
Massini, Liu, Berkman, Homewerks, and Waynick. Final Act. 8.
IV. Claims 11, 12, and 14–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Slapak and Berkman. Final Act. 9.
V. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Slapak, Berkman, and Homewerks. Final Act. 12.
VI. Claims 18, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Berkman, Li, Liu, and Park. Final Act. 14.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I – Claims 1–4 and 7–10
Appellant argues claims 1–4 and 7–10 as a group. Appeal Br. 6–7.
We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2018). Claims 2–4 and 7–10 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Massini discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1 including a fan unit, a cover disposed on the air inlet of the fan unit,
and a speaker directly disposed on the cover, but does not disclose that the
speaker is detachably disposed on the cover. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
finds that Liu discloses a speaker detachably disposed on a cover, and
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the speaker connection
of Massini to be detachable “to allow for easy removal and replacement of
the speaker.” Id. The Examiner also finds that Massini does not disclose an
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

4
outer cap having a plurality of through holes, but finds that Berkman
discloses such an outer cap. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Massini’s cover to have an outer cap “to
prevent larger debris from entering the fan unit and causing damage to the
fan.” Id. at 4.
Analogous Art
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification based on
Liu is improper because “Liu is related to a personal computer rather than a
ventilation fan. A personal computer is not analogous art of a ventilation
fan.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Specification discloses
that the invention relates to “a ventilation fan with a speaker.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Liu discloses that its “invention relates to a multifunctional frame assembly
of a personal computer, particularly to an assembly having a frame on which
a ventilating fan and a speaker can be held without using screws.” Liu 1:7–
10. The “field of endeavor” prong asks if the structure and function of the
prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in
the art because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed
invention as disclosed in the application. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325–
27 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Given that Liu relates to a specific use for the
ventilation fan and speaker, i.e., for a computer, whereas the present
invention broadly relates to a ventilation fan with a speaker that could be
used for various applications, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
consider Liu to be in the same field of endeavor because Liu has the same
structure (ventilating fan and speaker) and function (ventilating). We
therefore agree with the Examiner that Liu is analogous art. See Ans. 16.
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

5
Principle of Operation/Purpose
Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because “[t]he purpose
of Massini is to eliminate the drawbacks of the prior art by devising a low-
noise fume extractor hood provided with active noise suppression system
that does not obstruct the air extraction flow and at the same time allows for
directivity of sound beam.” Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, Massini
achieves this purpose by having a conduit that is free and by arranging the
sound transducers in a particular arrangement. Id. Appellant asserts that the
Examiner’s proposed modification requires changes to Massini’s chamber
44 and also requires transducer 5 of Massini to have an output channel
which is contrary to Mancini’s purposes. Id.
The Examiner responds that the proposed modification would
“prevent larger foreign objects from entering the air inlet while allowing for
the speaker to have a more direct sound path.” Ans. 17. The Examiner
notes that a grille (outer cap) as in Berkman is commonly used on air inlets
and do not obstruct airflow into the fan unit. Id.
The Examiner has the better position. Massini discloses that
positioning a speaker within a hood flow conduit creates drawbacks,
including turbulence and a build-up of dirt. Massini 1:58–67. Although a
grille as in Berkman might create some turbulence, the associated fan would
still operate as a ventilation fan. Thus, the Examiner’s proposed
modification would not render the ventilation fan of Massini unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose, nor change the principle of operation of the
ventilation fan.
Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner’s proposed modification
requires Massini’s transducer 5 to have an output channel, which is contrary
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

6
to Massini”s purposes (see Appeal Br. 7), is also unavailing. Massini’s
disclosure that it is “impossible to generate a sound beam with directivity
towards the outside of the conduit,” is when θ=0°. Mancini 4:65–5:3.
However, Mancini discloses that “the range of angle (θ) from 0 to 40° was
excluded because with such an inclination of the loudspeaker, the sound
pressure did not come out properly from the conduit of the hood.” Id. at
5:8–11. Rather, Massini discloses that “the sound emission surface (50) of
loudspeaker must be advantageously inclined with respect to axis (A) of the
conduit by an angle (θ) comprised in the range from 40° to 65°,” preferably
approximately 45°. Id. at 5:25–30. The Examiner’s proposed modification
keeps the angle of Massini’s loudspeakers, but places a grille in front of the
air inlet, so that the sound beam from the loudspeakers is emitted out of the
holes in Berkman’s grille instead of directly out of the conduit (see Ans. 17),
which is consistent with the purpose of Massini’s invention. We are not
apprised of Examiner error on this point.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Massini, Liu, and Berkman. Claims 2–4 and
7–10 fall therewith.

Rejections II and III – Claims 5 and 6
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 1. Appellant makes no argument
that claims 5 and 6 would be patentable if claim 1 is not patentable. Appeal
Br. 9–10. We therefore sustain these rejections for the reasons set forth
above.

Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

7
Rejection IV – Claims 11, 12, and 14–17
Independent claim 11 differs from independent claim 1 in reciting that
the fan unit has a volute casing. The Examiner finds that Slapak discloses
most of the limitations of claim 11 including a fan unit, a volute casing, and
a speaker directly and detachably disposed outside of the volute casing, but
does not disclose an outer cap disposed on the air inlet having a plurality of
through holes. Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds that Berkman discloses a
grille unit (outer cap) disposed on the air inlet having a plurality of through
holes. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify Slapak’s fan inlet to have an outer cap “to prevent larger debris from
entering the fan unit and causing damage to the fan.” Id. at 10.
Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because Slapak
requires that “each speaker is disposed in a speaker chamber (enclosure)
which is adjacent to the respective inlet or outlet duct of the fan system … to
prevent noise from being emitted to the wrong side of the speaker, and hence
to produce noise.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Slapak ¶ 218). According to
Appellant, modifying Slapak as “proposed by the Examiner actually changes
the configuration or the relations of the speaker, the chamber and inlet/outlet
duct, and requires the speaker of Slapak to have an output channel which is
contrary to his purposes and change the operation principle of Slapak.” Id.
The Examiner responds that “[t]he speaker in the combination of
Slapak and Berkman will be focused downward thus directing the sound
toward the air inlet and out into the upstream area of the fan unit.” Ans. 17.
According to the Examiner, “[t]he speaker and position taught by Berkman
are fully capable of emitting a sound to cancel out the operation sound of
Slapak’s fan.” Ans. 17–18.
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

8
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. In the Final Action, the
Examiner relies on the proposition that the result of combining Slapak and
Berkman “would be such that the speaker (Speaker of Slapak) is located
between the fan unit (With in fan housing of Slapak) and the outer cap (808
of Berkman).” Final Act. 9–10. Thus the Examiner appears to be relying on
the speaker of Slapak remaining in its intended position. In the Answer, the
Examiner refers to the “speaker and position taught by Berkman.” Ans. 17–
18. Thus, it is not clear to us whether the Examiner is now relying on the
speaker and its position relative to the grille (outer cap) that is depicted in
Figure 8 of Berkman. Nonetheless, as Appellant correctly notes, the purpose
of Slapak is to provide a noise cancelling system to prevent noise. Slapak ¶¶
2, 163–164, 218; Appeal Br. 8. Regardless of which speaker and position
the Examiner relies on, the Examiner acknowledges that Berkman’s speaker
is “fully capable of emitting a sound to cancel out the operation sound of
Slapak’s fan.” Ans. 17–18. As such, the Examiner has not adequately
established that “each of the through holes is configured as both of an output
channel of the speaker and a ventilation channel,” as required by claim 11.
That is given that noise cancellation would occur within the device, and thus
that no noise may be output, the Examiner’s finding that the through holes
are configured as an output channel of the speaker is speculative.
Alternatively, if the combination of Slapak and Berkman were to use the
through holes as an output channel for the speaker, we agree with Appellant
that such a modification is contrary to Slapak’s purpose of noise cancellation
and would change the principle of operation of Slapak, i.e., preventing noise
from being emitted.
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

9
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Slapak and Berkman. We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 14–17 depending from claim 11 for the
same reasons.

Rejection V – Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 11. The Examiner does not rely on the
disclosure of Homewerks in any manner that would remedy the deficiencies
of Slapak and Berkman discussed above in Rejection IV. Final Act. 12–13.
We therefore do not sustain this rejection for the same reasons.

Rejection VI – Claims 18, 22, and 23
Independent claim 18 differs from independent claim 1 in reciting an
indicator lamp and reciting that the outer cap has locking members that
engage the speaker.
The Examiner finds that Berkman discloses most of the limitations of
claim 18 including a fan unit, an outer cap having through holes, and a
speaker on the outer cap, but does not disclose the speaker directly and
detachably disposed on the outer cap, or that the outer cap has two locking
members. Final Act. 14. The Examiner finds that Li discloses a ventilation
unit having a speaker directly and detachably disposed on an outer cap, and
the outer cap having two locking members. Id. at 15. The Examiner
considers that it would have been obvious “to modify the speaker location
and mounting structure of Berkman with the teachings of Li to allow for
easier access to the speaker while maintaining the correct position.” Id.
The Examiner also finds that Berkman does not disclose the speaker being
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

10
disposed beside and outside of the air inlet, but that Liu discloses such a
speaker position. Id. The Examiner considers that it would have been
obvious to modify the location of Berkman’s speaker in accordance with
Liu’s speaker location “to improve the air flow of the fan by reducing
interference caused by the speaker.” Id. at 16. The Examiner further finds
that Berkman does not disclose an indicator lamp configured to provide an
indication of the wireless connection state of the speaker, but that Park
discloses such an indicator. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to add Park’s indicator to Berkman’s ventilation fan “to show
the state of the connection of the speaker to provide and easy and visible
check to ensure the speaker is connected to the transmitting device.” Id.
Analogous Art
Appellant argues that Li relates to a computer case rather than a
ventilation fan, and that Li cannot be used as a basis to reject the claims
because “[a] computer case is not analogous art of a ventilation fan.”
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant makes a similar argument against Liu, asserting
that Liu cannot be used as a basis to reject the claims because Liu’s
“personal computer is not analogous art of a ventilation fan.” Appeal Br. 8–
9.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Li discloses a connection
element for mounting a speaker to a grating of a computer case to reduce
assembly time. Li 1:10–14. Although we appreciate that a computer case is
not a ventilating fan, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if:
(1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention
(even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

11
field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at
1325. Appellant does not explain why Li is not reasonably pertinent to
Appellant’s problem. Here, Appellant discloses that “the speaker is
detachable, so that it can individually operate after being detached from the
ventilation fan.” Spec. ¶ 37. Thus, a problem that Appellant addresses is
that the speaker in previous ventilation fan/speaker combinations could not
be individually operated, a proposed solution being allowing independent
detachment of the speaker for independent operation. Li discloses a
detachable speaker that can easily be attached/detached regardless of the
other components of the system. Li is pertinent to individual speaker
operation by allowing independent detachment of the speaker. The fact that
Li’s speaker is detachable from a computer case goes to the field of
endeavor portion of the analogous art test. As to Liu, as discussed above in
Rejection I, Liu is in the same field of endeavor, an assembly of a ventilating
fan and a speaker.
Through Holes
Appellant also argues that the Examiner does not clearly identify
which of Berkman’s through holes are configured as both an output channel
of the speaker and a ventilation channel. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts
that, in any event, Berkman does not disclose this limitation because
Berkman’s “first openings 308c are for admission of moisture but not for
downward propagation of sound waves, and … the second openings 308d
are for downward propagation of sound waves but not for admission of
moisture. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner relies on the
holes depicted in Berkman’s Figure 3A, reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

12

Figure 3A illustrates an embodiment without illustrating the speaker.
Berkman ¶ 8. Figure 3A shows grille 308 having “first openings 308c and
second openings 308d.” Id. ¶ 39. Consistent with Appellant’s argument,
Berkman’s grille 308 “defines a first array of openings 108c [(308c)]
through which air may flow upward while the fan is operated and a second
array of openings 108d [(308d)] through which sound may propagate
downward.” Id. ¶ 20. However, we also note that Berkman discloses that
“[t]he smaller size of second openings 108d may help to prevent moisture
from reaching the speaker 110 as air flow will find less resistance in passing
through the larger openings of the first array of openings 108c.” Id.
Although the reduced size of openings 308d may limit the amount of
moisture reaching speaker 110 some air will flow through openings 308d.
Thus, openings 308d will function as an output channel of the speaker by
propagating sound as well as a ventilation channel by flowing air.
Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Appeal 2019-005081
Application 14/755,660

13
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 as unpatentable over
Berkman, Li, Liu, and Park. We also sustain the rejection of claims 22 and
23 depending from claim 18, which Appellant does not separately argue.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–10 103 Massini, Liu, Berkman 1–4, 7–10
5 103 Massini, Liu, Berkman,
Homewerks
5
6 103 Massini, Liu, Berkman,
Homewerks, Waynick
6
11, 12, 14–17 103 Slapak, Berkman 11, 12, 14–17
13 103 Slapak, Berkman,
Homewerks
13
18, 22, 23 103 Berkman, Li, Liu, Park 18, 22, 23
Overall
Outcome:
1–10, 18,
22, 23
11–17
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