Ex Parte Okita

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13064127 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/064, 127 03/08/2011
32628 7590 08/31/2016
KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2848
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shioto Okita
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.
OHA-128 9937
EXAMINER
MONIKANG, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
office@uspatentagents.com
docketing@ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SHIOTO OKITA
Appeal2015-004026
Application 13/064, 127
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, AMBER L. HAGY, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-004026
Application 13/064, 127
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final
rejection of claims 1 and 3. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to a variable directional microphone,
including dynamic microphone units. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A variable directional microphone, comprising:
a unidirectional first dynamic microphone unit, and a
unidirectional second dynamic microphone unit which has the same
configuration as that of the first dynamic microphone unit and is
provided with an output adjusting device of sound signal, the first and
second dynamic microphone units being provided as a pair,
wherein each of the first and second dynamic microphone units
has an electrokinetic acousto-electric converter, and a rear air chamber
with a predetermined capacity acoustically connected to a rear portion
of the electrokinetic acousto-electric converter,
the first and second dynamic microphone units are arranged
coaxially so that directivity axes thereof are directed to directions
180° opposite to each other, and output signals of the dynamic
microphone units are generated via a signal synthesis circuit,
the rear portions of the first and second electrokinetic acousto-
electric converters are sealingly connected together by a connecting
cylinder, and
one rear air chamber which is used in common by the first and
second dynamic microphone units and has a capacity same as the
predetermined capacity is provided in the connecting cylinder
between the rear portions of the first and second dynamic microphone
units, and
the rear air chamber is arranged on an outside between the
dynamic microphone units via a predetermined tube member.
2
Appeal2015-004026
Application 13/064, 127
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 4,399,327; Aug. 16, 1983) and Ohkubo
(US 5,862,240; Jan. 19, 1999).
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 8) that the
combination of Yamamoto and Ohkubo would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "the rear air chamber is
arranged on an outside between the dynamic microphone units via a
predetermined tube member."
The Examiner found that the tube guide of Ohkubo, having a
microphone unit at an outgoing hole, corresponds to the limitation "the rear
air chamber is arranged on an outside between the dynamic microphone
units via a predetermined tube member." (Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 4--5, 8.)
We do not agree.
Claim 1 recites "rear air chamber" (emphasis added). One relevant
plain meaning of "chamber" is "a natural or artificial enclosed space or
cavity." MERRIMAN-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 190 (10th ed.
1999). This definition of "chamber" is consistent with Appellant's
Specification, which states that "[ t ]he rear air chamber 1 b is formed by a
substantially enclosed unit case 40 mounted on the rear end side of the unit
holder 30." (i-f 10.) Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, we interpret "chamber" as an
enclosed space or cavity.
3
Appeal2015-004026
Application 13/064, 127
Ohkubo relates to a microphone device with improved directivity with
respect to a sound source. (Col. 1, 11. 8-10.) Figure 12 of Ohkubo illustrates
a microphone device including guide element 20 with three sound (acoustic)
tubes 21, 22, 23 such that "opening portions formed at one end side are ...
sound wave introduction holes 21A, 22A, 23A ... connected at the outgoing
portion which is the opening portion side of the other end side, and a
microphone unit 25 provided at an outgoing hole 20A of the wave guide
element 20." (Col. 8, 11. 21-29.)
Although the Examiner cites to guide element 20 of Ohkubo having
three sound (acoustic) tubes 21, 22, 23, as illustrated in Figure 12 (Non-Final
Act. 5; Ans. 8), the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a
finding that Ohkubo teaches the limitation "the rear air chamber is arranged
on an outside between the dynamic microphone units via a predetermined
tube member." In particular, because sound wave introduction holes 21 A,
22A, 23A of Ohkubo function to direct sound to outgoing sound hole 20A,
the Examiner has not demonstrated that such acoustic tube and/ or sound
wave introduction holes 21A, 22A, 23A connected to outgoing hole 20A
disclose a "chamber" (i.e., enclosed space or cavity), as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded by Appellant's
arguments that "the wave guide element 20 [of Ohkubo] guides waves from
the respective sound introduction holes 2 lA, 22A, 23A to the microphone
unit 25 through the respective sound tubes 21, 22, 23" and "since the
respective sound tubes 21, 22, 23 have the respective sound holes 21A, 22A,
23B to guide the waves, the wave guide element 20 is not sealed or
conducted to a chamber; therefore, the wave guide element 20 is not
serv[ing] as a chamber." (App. Br. 8.)
4
Appeal2015-004026
Application 13/064, 127
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Yamamoto and Ohkubo would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitation "the rear air chamber is arranged on an outside
between the dynamic microphone units via a predetermined tube member."
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claim 3 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 3
for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3 is reversed.
REVERSED
5