Ex Parte Landis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2014

11811192 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014)

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.
11/811,192 06/07/2007 Jeffrey L. Landis F-TP-00196 (SPLG 3057) 8887
7590 03/28/2014
Rick Comoglio
Tyco International Ltd.
One Town Center Road
Boca Raton, FL 33486
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY L. LANDIS
____________

Appeal 2011-011290
Application 11/811,192
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-14, 16-23, and 25-35. Br. 5; Ans. 2. Claims 9,
15, and 24 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2011-011290
Application 11/811,192

2
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-19, 21-23, and
25-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over US Patent No.
5,317,305 to Campman and US Pub. No. 2007/0247028 A1 to Brosch. Ans.
4-33.
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 20 under § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Campman, Brosch, and US Patent No. 6,091,331 to Toft. Id. at 33-35.

APPELLANT’S DISCLOSED INVENTION
The invention clamps a piezoelectric speaker diaphragm within its
casing. Spec., ¶¶ [0001]-[0005]; Abst. Unlike an adherent affixing of the
diaphragm and casing, the clamping allows the casing to expand without
consequently pulling on the diaphragm, such as when the casing expands
due to ambient temperature. Id.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-8, 10-14, 16-23, 25, 33, and 34
Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Each of claims 2-8, 10-14, 17-23,
25, 33, and 34 depends from one of claims 1 and 16. As reflected below, an
issue on appeal is whether the Examiner adequately addresses the claimed
“piezoelectric assembly compressively held in the housing” (claims 1 and
16).
The Examiner finds that this feature is taught by Campman’s PASS
device and, particularly, by the device’s encasement of a piezoelectric sound
transducer 132 within a housing 26, 28. Ans. 4-5; 15. In other words, the
Appeal 2011-011290
Application 11/811,192

3
Examiner reads the claimed piezoelectric assembly and housing respectively
on Campman’s transducer 132 and housing 26, 28. Id.
Appellant argues:
The outstanding Final Office Action asserts that “[Campman’s]
sound transducer is compressed to the walls of the housing by
gravity and a force applied by the [transducer-to-housing
waterproof] bonding”. (See page 35 of the Final Office Action
dated September 27, 2010). But, Campman does not describe
or illustrate that the sound transducer 132 or any other
component engaged with the sound transducer 132 is
compressed by gravity and forces applied by the waterproof
bonding.
Br. 16. The Examiner responds:
[A]ny type of compressive force, regardless of the strength of
the force, on the piezoelectric assembly would read on the
claim. As further explained in the Final Office Action, Fig. 7 of
the Campman reference shows the transducer in a slanted
orientation. From the disclosure, there is a waterproof bonding
applied to the edges of the sound transducer to bond the edges
to the interior of the housing (see Campman, Col. 12, Lines
46-52). Because of the orientation of the transducer, certain
forces, including gravity and the bonding forces of the
waterproof bonding, act upon the transducer to compress or
press together the edges of the transducer to the interior wall of
the housing.
Ans. 36.
In light of the above contentions, the Examiner has not presented a
teaching of compressive force that holds Campman’s transducer 132 within
the housing 26, 28. The Examiner has rather speculated that, inherently, a
nominal amount of such compressive force is exerted by gravity and the
waterproof bond. Such a speculation is erred, particularly insofar as failing
Appeal 2011-011290
Application 11/811,192

4
to establish a reason to believe that gravity or bonding compressively holds
the transducer 132 with greater than de minimis force. See Crown
Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp.,
635 F. 3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]nherent anticipation requires . . .
more than the presence of an unrecognized de minimis quantity of claimed
substance in the prior art[.]” (citations omitted)). For the foregoing reasons,
the rejection of claims 1-8, 10-14, 16-23, 25, 33, and 34 is not sustained.
Claims 26-31 and 35
Claim 26 is independent. Claims 27-31 and 35 depend from claim 26.
As reflected below, an issue on appeal is whether the Examiner adequately
addresses the claimed
piezoelectric assembly having a disk-shaped body extending radially
outward from a central axis and having a peripheral edge portion
positioned radially outward relative to the central axis, . . . , wherein a
gap extends radially about the central axis and is positioned between
the peripheral edge portion of the piezoelectric assembly and an
interior wall of the housing to accommodate expansion and
contraction of the housing relative to the piezoelectric assembly in a
radial direction with respect to the central axis

(claim 26).

Citing Campman’s Figure 9A, the Examiner reads the claimed
piezoelectric assembly on the transducer 132 (i.e., all elements of Figure
9A); claimed disk-shaped body on the piezo material 138; claimed
peripheral edge portion on the circumference of the piezo material 138; and
claimed gap on the spacing between the piezo material 138 and housing 26,
28 (Campman’s Figure 6B). Ans. 23-25.
Appeal 2011-011290
Application 11/811,192

5
Appellant argues that, in view of the “peripheral” modifier, the
claimed peripheral edge portion cannot read on an internal portion of the
transducer 132 and thus cannot read on the circumference of the piezo
material 138. Br. 22. The argument is not commensurate with the claim
scope. As explained by the Examiner, claim 26 does not require the
peripheral edge portion to define a most outwardly surface of the
piezoelectric assembly as a whole. Ans. 39-40. Rather, claim 26 requires
the peripheral edge portion to be part of the piezoelectric assembly and
“positioned radially outward relative to the central axis.” Id. The
“positioned radially . . .” recitation indicates that “peripheral” means
separate and facing outward from the central axis; not a most outwardly
surface of the piezoelectric assembly as a whole, as argued.
Appellant presents no contrary evidence or reasoning to show that the
argued meaning of “peripheral” is the only viable meaning; e.g., has not
cited Specification evidence, presented extrinsic evidence, or even filed a
reply brief in response to the Examiner’s claim interpretation. Thus, in light
of the above interpretation of the claimed peripheral edge portion,
Appellant’s argument (Br. 22) that the claimed peripheral edge portion
cannot read on the circumference of Campman’s piezo material 138 is not
persuasive.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 26-31 and 35 is
sustained.
Appeal 2011-011290
Application 11/811,192

6
Claim 32
Claim 32 depends from claim 26. An issue on appeal is whether the
Examiner adequately addresses the claimed “o-ring . . . compressed between
the mounting member and the piezoelectric assembly” (claim 32).
The Examiner interprets the claimed o-ring as being compressed by
any means and located anywhere between the mounting member and
piezoelectric assembly. Ans. 41. In turn, the Examiner reads the claimed
o-ring on Campman’s gasket 30, stating:
[Campman’s] gasket 30 is shown to be between the rear cover
28, which is the mounting member, and the front case part 26,
which houses the planar transducer 132, which is the
piezoelectric assembly, as seen in Fig[s]. 6A and 6B. Thus, the
gasket is at least partially compressed between the mounting
member and the piezoelectric assembly.
Id.
Appellant argues:
[A]s is apparent from Figure 6A of Campman, no portion of the
gasket 30 extends between the rear cover 28 and the sound
transducer 132. Accordingly, the gasket 30 of Campman is not
at least partially compressed between the sound transducer 132
of Campman and another component of Campman, as is
[claimed].
Br. 25. The argument is persuasive. Campman’s figures do not illustrate the
gasket 30 as situated between the transducer 132 and either housing part 26,
28. At best, the figures indicate that the lowermost portion of the gasket 30
(i.e., near the bottom edge 170 of the transducer 132) is situated
approximately between the lowermost portions of the rear cover 28 and
transducer 132. The indication is not, as found by the Examiner, an express
Appeal 2011-011290
Application 11/811,192

7
or implicit teaching of the gasket 30 as being situated between the rear cover
28 and transducer 132.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 32 is not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-14, 16-23, 25, and
32-34 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 26-31 and 35 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

rwk