Ex Parte Pribyl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2018

13900183 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/900,183 05/22/2013 Richard Pribyl
109676 7590 07/30/2018
Brooks Kushman P.C./Harman
1000 Town Center
Twenty Second Floor
Southfield, MI 48075
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
HARM0336PUSA 6481
EXAMINER
JEREZ LORA, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2018 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 RICHARD PRIBYL, MICHAEL PERKMANN,
and HANNES LEHDORFER
Appeal2018-000478
Application 13/900, 183
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-20, all of the claims pending in the
application. App. Br. Title Page. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellants state the real party interest is AKG Acoustics GmbH. App.
Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 17, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed October 16, 2017, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
August 16, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed November 17, 2016,
"Final Act."), and the Specification (filed May 22, 2013, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
Appeal 2018-000478
Application 13/900, 183
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to an application implemented to decrease a time
delay between a microphone and a loudspeaker. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. An earphone with active suppression of ambient noise
compnsmg:
an electrodynamic loudspeaker with a membrane;
a microphone provided in an interior of the
earphone; and
an electronic circuit, with which the loudspeaker
and the microphone are connected by a connection
line, where the microphone is incorporated with the
membrane.
References and Rejections
Brooks et al. us 5,815,050 Sept. 29, 1998
Gamer et al. US 2005/0036646 Al Feb. 17,2005
Polfreman et al. US 2006/0104473 Al May 18, 2006
Grell et al. US 2009/0136055 Al May 18, 2009
De Haan US 2010/0067731 Al Mar. 18, 2010
D 'Agostino et al. US 2011/0044465 Al Feb. 24, 2011
Schoerkmaier US 2011/0170699 Al July 14, 2011
2
Appeal 2018-000478
Application 13/900, 183
Yih-Nen Jeng, Tzung-Ming Yang, and Shang-Yin Lee, Response
Identification in the Extremely Low Frequency Region on an Electret
Condenser Microphone, 11 Sensors 623-37 (2011) ("Jeng").
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1--4, 11-14, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schoerkmaier and
Jeng. Final Act. 3-7.
2. Claim 5 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schoerkmaier, Jeng, and Grell. Final Act. 7-8.
3. Claim 6 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schoerkmaier, Jeng, Grell, and Polfreman. Final
Act. 8-9.
4. Claim 7 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schoerkmaier, Jeng, and Brooks. Final Act. 9.
5. Claims 8, 9, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Schoerkmaier, Jeng, and Gamer.
Final Act. 9-10.
6. Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schoerkmaier, Jeng, Gamer, and De Haan. Final
Act. 11.
7. Claim 19 stands rejected underpre-AIA35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schoerkmaier, Jeng, and D' Agostino. Final Act.
11-12.
3
Appeal 2018-000478
Application 13/900, 183
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-20 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants'
arguments, presented in the Appeal Brief, in the order in which they are
raised. See App. Br. 2-8.
CLAIMS 1-20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SCHOERKMAIERAND JENG
With respect to independent Claim 1, the Examiner finds
Schoerkmaier teaches an electrodynamic loudspeaker having a membrane,
but fails to teach a microphone directly attached to the membrane. Final
Act. 3. The Examiner finds Jeng teaches a microphone attached to the
membrane. Id.
Appellants contend Jeng fails to teach a microphone directly attached
to a membrane of an electrodynamic loudspeaker, as claimed. App. Br. 3.
Appellants argue that Jeng teaches a microphone positioned on a DVD plate
and a speaker positioned behind the DVD plate, and thus no microphone is
directly attached to a membrane of an electrodynamic loudspeaker. Id.
Appellants further argue Jeng teaches an exciter, but does not teach an
electrodynamic microphone. Id.
The Examiner responds that what Appellants term an "exciter" Jeng
clearly discloses is an "'electrodynamic modal exciter (B&K, Type 4824),"'
which the Examiner finds can function as an electrodynamic loudspeaker.
Ans. 12.
Appellants contend the "Examiner's assertion that the electrodynamic
modal exciter 'can' operate as an electrodynamic loudspeaker is conclusory
4
Appeal 2018-000478
Application 13/900, 183
and not supported by any facts contained within the cited passages, let alone
the disclosure of Jeng." Reply Br. 2.
Briiel & Kjmr Sound & Vibration Measurement A/S (a Denmark
corporation) describe their Modal Exciter Type 4824 as a "compact and
1ightweight modal exciter with a force rating of 100 N (22 lbf\ Type 4824 is
ideal for high-precision, single- or multi-point excitation of a range of
payloads, from automotive powertrain and drivetrain components to large
and very large structures. 1 ' 3 The Type 4824 is built for "challenging modal
applications, including SISO and SHv10 tests of mechanical components,
such as engines.~, Id.
Because the Record does not suggest that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would equate a modal exciter with an electrodynamic loudspeaker,
we find the combination of Schoerkmaier and Jeng fails to teach at least one
limitation of the claimed invention. Independent Claims 14 and 20 contain
commensurate recitations. The Examiner does not cite the remaining art to
teach the missing limitation. See Ans. 11-14. In view of the foregoing, we
decline to sustain the rejections of Claims 1-20.
DECISION
The rejections of Claims 1-20 under U.S.C. § 103 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
3 Briiel & Kjmr Sound & Vibration Measurement A/S, Modal Exciter Type
4824-Bruel & Kjcer Sound & Vibration, https://www.bksv.com/en/
products/shakers-and-exciters/modal-exciter-type4824 (accessed 6/20/2018).
5