PTAB

IPR2014-00235

Apple Inc v. THX Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Narrow profile speaker configuration and system
  • Brief Description: The ’483 patent discloses narrow-profile and groundplane loudspeaker configurations designed to be used in confined spaces. The systems feature a speaker driver mounted on a surface facing a sound-reflecting surface, which together form a sound duct that redirects sound waves toward an output aperture.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Sadaie - Claims 1 and 3 are anticipated by Sadaie under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sadaie (WO 00/52958).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Sadaie discloses every limitation of independent claim 1. Sadaie teaches a small speaker system with a drive unit on a mounting surface, a parallel sound-reflecting surface, and a sound duct defined by these surfaces and sound damping material forming the sides. This configuration turns forward radiation from the drive unit at a right angle toward an elongate output slot. Petitioner further contended that Sadaie’s use of acoustic material, such as felt, on the duct walls mitigates standing waves as claimed. For dependent claim 3, Petitioner asserted Sadaie’s sound damping material forms a back wall that follows the curved contour of the drive unit cone.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sadaie and Secondary References - Claims 4-6, 8, 10, 16, 18-20 are obvious over Sadaie in view of Villa or Anderson under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sadaie (WO 00/52958), Villa (UK Application # GB2184323), and Anderson (Patent 4,620,317).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Sadaie discloses most elements of the challenged independent claims (4 and 18), teaching a narrow-profile groundplane speaker with a housing, a baffled drive unit, support members, and a sound duct. The primary element not explicitly taught by Sadaie was the requirement that the output aperture be sufficiently narrow to avoid an "interfering phase shift" between direct and reflected sound waves.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have recognized the potential for sound degradation from wave interference in Sadaie’s design. Both Villa and Anderson addressed this exact problem, teaching that interference can be suppressed by ensuring the distance between a speaker diaphragm and a reflecting baffle is less than one-quarter of the shortest radiated wavelength. A POSA would combine Sadaie’s general structure with the specific dimensional teachings of Villa or Anderson to optimize sound quality.
    • Expectation of Success: The proposed modification was a matter of applying a well-known design principle to solve a known problem. A POSA would have had a high expectation of success that narrowing the duct as taught by Villa or Anderson would predictably reduce interference and improve the sound quality of the Sadaie speaker system.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Tomonori and Secondary References - Claims 1-3 are obvious over Tomonori in view of Virva and Sadaie under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tomonori (European Application # EP744880), Virva (Patent 3,687,220), and Sadaie (WO 00/52958).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Tomonori, discloses a narrow profile speaker for a television that includes a drive unit, a mounting surface, a parallel reflecting surface, and a sound duct. Tomonori explicitly teaches packing the rear of the sound duct with sound-absorbing material to suppress standing waves. However, Tomonori does not explicitly disclose the damping material forming the sides of the duct.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA seeking to further improve Tomonori's design would look to other known methods for reducing resonance. Both Virva and Sadaie taught that lining the entire interior periphery of a speaker enclosure or sound duct with acoustic material was a known solution to prevent spurious resonances and standing waves. A POSA would combine Tomonori's use of rear damping material with the teachings of Virva and Sadaie to line the sides of the duct as well.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying sound damping material to the sides of a duct was a routine design choice with the predictable result of further minimizing unwanted resonances, leading to improved sound quality.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claims 4-6, 10, and 16 are anticipated by Villa; claim 8 is obvious over Villa in view of Robbins; and claims 18-20 are obvious over Villa in view of Tamura and Sadaie.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Interfering Phase Shift": Petitioner proposed this term means "a state in which sound waves are out of phase and thus cancel out one another in whole or in part." This construction was central to the argument that a POSA would have been motivated to modify Sadaie with the teachings of Villa or Anderson, which explicitly address how to design speaker ducts to avoid such cancellation.
  • "Groundplane Audio Speaker System": Petitioner proposed this term means "an audio speaker system configured to emanate sound toward a nearby flat surface." This construction supported the application of references like Sadaie and Villa, which describe speakers intended for placement on a table or floor, to the groundplane-specific claims.
  • "Sound Damping Material": Petitioner proposed this term means "material that absorbs sound waves in an audible frequency range." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the specification’s examples (e.g., foam, rubber) and necessary for mapping the acoustic materials disclosed in the prior art to the claim limitations.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 16, and 18-20 of the ’483 patent as unpatentable.