Ex Parte ADAMS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2018

13779314 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/779,314 02/27/2013
21186 7590 09/17/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Robert ADAMS
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.
13641/470901 4273
EXAMINER
MOHAMMED, ASSAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2018 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT ADAMS and KIM SPETZLER BERTHELSEN
Appeal2018-003359
Application No. 13/779,314 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLL. SILVERMAN and CATHERINE
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-20, and 22-31. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants' invention is a method for detecting diaphragm excursion
of an electrodynamic loudspeaker. An audio signal is generated for
application to a voice coil of the electrodynamic loudspeaker, and a high-
frequency probe signal is added to the audio signal to generate a composite
1 The real party in interest is Analog Devices Global. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 6 and 21 have been cancelled.
Appeal2018-003359
Application 13/779,314
drive signal. The method further comprises detecting a modulation level of
probe signal current flowing through the voice coil. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of detecting diaphragm excursion of an electrodynamic
loudspeaker, comprising steps of:
receiving a digital audio signal having a first sample rate,
using an up-sampler and modulator circuit, up-sampling the
digital audio signal to a greater second sample rate and adding a high-
frequency probe signal to the up-sampled digital audio signal to
generate a pulse-modulated composite drive signal, wherein the probe
signal has a frequency that exceeds a Nyquist frequency of the
received digital audio signal,
applying the pulse-modulated composite drive signal to a voice
coil of the electrodynamic speaker through an output amplifier,
detecting a composite drive signal current flowing through the
voice coil in response to the application of the pulse-modulated
composite drive signal,
detecting a modulation level of a probe signal current from the
composite drive signal current, and
identifying an excursion of a diaphragm of the loudspeaker
based on the detected modulation level of the probe signal current.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Risbo et al. US 2013/0077795 Al Mar. 28, 2013
Bazarjani et al. US 2009/00220110 Al Sept. 3, 2009
Muza US 2012/0308046 Al Dec. 6, 2012
Pedlow us 6,122,380 Sept. 19, 2000
Kim et al. US 2012/0195443 Al Aug. 2, 2012
Kost US 2009/0058549 Al Mar. 5, 2009
Y amkovoyet al. US 2012/0249125 Al Oct. 4, 2012
Luo et al. US 2012/0281844 Al Nov. 8, 2012
2
Appeal2018-003359
Application 13/779,314
Gassmann us 3,875,341 Apr. 1, 1975
Karnath US 7,298,296 B 1 Nov. 20, 2007
Y oshii et al. US 2006/0172716 Al Aug.3,2006
Shimizu et al. us 4,541,109 Sep. 10, 1985
Kristensen et al. us 2013/0170660 July 4, 2013
German US 7,107,159 B2 Sep. 12,2006
Li et al. us 5,613,218 Mar. 18, 1997
Chang et al. US 2009/0098714 Al Apr. 16, 2009
Claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 17, 20, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§I03(a) as being unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Pedlow.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, Pedlow, and Kristensen.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, Pedlow, and German.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, Pedlow, Kristensen, and
Gassmann.
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, Pedlow, and Karnath.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, Pedlow, and Y oshii.
Claims 11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, Pedlow, Y oshii, and Shimizu.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, Pedlow, and Luo.
3
Appeal2018-003359
Application 13/779,314
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, Pedlow, and Yamkovoy.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Kristensen.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and German.
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Karnath.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, Karnath, and Kost.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Y oshii.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, Y oshii, and Shimizu.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Pavlov.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Li.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Chang.
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Kim.
4
Appeal2018-003359
Application 13/779,314
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Aug. 8, 2017) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
Dec. 11, 201 7) for their respective details.
ISSUE
Does the combination of Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Pedlow disclose
or fairly suggest detecting diaphragm excursion of an electrodynamic
loudspeaker including, inter alia, adding a high-frequency probe signal to an
up-sampled digital audio signal to generate a pulse-modulated composite
drive signal?
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "using an up-sampler and modulator
circuit, up-sampling the digital audio signal to a greater second sample rate
and adding a high-frequency probe signal to the up-sampled digital audio
signal to generate a pulse-modulated composite drive signal." Independent
claim 1 7 recites an analogous limitation.
The Examiner asserts the combination of Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and
Pedlow to obtain the invention under appeal. Ans. 4-9. The Examiner
finds, inter alia, that Bazarjani discloses "receiving a digital audio signal
having a first sample rate ... up-sampling the digital audio signal to a
greater second sample rate and adding a high-frequency probe signal to the
up-sampled digital audio signal to generate a pulse-modulated composite
drive signal." Ans. 5, citing Bazarjani ,r,r 48, 49. The Examiner finds that
Bazarjani, in the cited paragraphs, discloses an oscillator signal that "is
added to the up-sampled digital audio signal." Id. at 5-6.
5
Appeal2018-003359
Application 13/779,314
We do not agree with the Examiner that Bazarjani discloses adding a
signal to the up-sampled digital audio signal, or that the oscillator signal
disclosed in Bazarjani performs the function ascribed to it by the Examiner.
We agree with Appellants that Bazarjani discloses a finite impulse response
(FIR) filter that "receives the output of the first up-sampling interpolation
module 512 and uses an oscillator signal with a frequency eight (8) times
the sampling rate of the input digital audio signal to filter out image and
other unwanted signals." App. Br. 8-9. We agree with Appellants that the
cited section teaches the filtering out of unwanted signal components, rather
than the adding of a high-frequency probe signal to generate a pulse-
modulated composite drive signal. App. Br. 9.
The Examiner further modifies Risbo and Bazarjani in view of
Muza, allegedly "generating a pulse modulated signal with a high
frequency signal and electric signal (sound waves)," which "generates
a composite pulse modulated signal." Final Act. 5-6. Appellants
argue in response that the suggested modification fails to address why
the person having ordinary skill in the art would look to Muza, which
is directed to an electrostatic speaker system, to solve problems
related to measuring displacement in an electrodynamic speaker
system. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants contend that there is no teaching
or discussion in the Office Action as to how or why one would look to
Muza, which teaches an electrostatic speaker that has a diaphragm
that moves only between known positions, for a teaching of a pulse-
modulated composite drive signal for detecting variable loudspeaker
diaphragm excursion in an electrodynamic speaker. App. Br. 22
(emphasis added). The Examiner's Answer provides no response of
6
Appeal2018-003359
Application 13/779,314
any kind to these arguments. We agree with Appellants, then, that the
Examiner's reasoning for combining Risbo, Bazarjani, and Pedlow
with Muza lacks a rational underpinning to support the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness.
We find that the combination of Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and
Pedlow fails to disclose all the elements of independent claims 1 and
17. We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1
and 17, as well as dependent claims 5, 12, 13, 20, and 30 not argued
separately.
CLAIMS2-4, 7-11, 14-16, 18, 19,22-29,AND31
Each of these claims depends from independent claim 1 or
independent claim 1 7. The Examiner has not found that the additional cited
references (Kristensen, German, Gassmann, Karnath, Y oshii, Shimizu, Luo,
Yamkovoy, Kost, Pavlov, Li, Chang, and Kim) remedy the deficiencies of
the combination of Risbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Pedlow asserted with
respect to claims 1 and 1 7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 2-4, 7-11, 14-16, 18, 19, 22-29, and 31, for the same
reasons given supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 17.
CONCLUSION
The combination ofRisbo, Bazarjani, Muza, and Pedlow fails to
disclose or fairly suggest detecting diaphragm excursion of an
electrodynamic loudspeaker including, inter alia, adding a high-frequency
probe signal to an up-sampled digital audio signal to generate a pulse-
modulated composite drive signal.
7
Appeal2018-003359
Application 13/779,314
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-20, and 22-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
8