 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim posted by dwiggins@adireaudio.com on July 03, 2002 at 17:39:04:
Hello again Dan!You wrote:
>> One clearly cannot patent that which exists and is publicly known prior to the filing of the patent.
Then you see my point. There are several claims listed that do not fit the criteria. Take just one, claim 3:
"3. A sound reproduction system for creating a unified sound source field from a plurality of audio signals, comprising:
a horn of a loudspeaker enclosure having multiply segmented portions according to the frequency response of the horn, comprising a throat and an aperture extending outwardly from the throat;
a loudspeaker driver coupled to the throat of the horn operating in a first one of a plurality of frequency ranges;
a plurality of throat ports for receiving the loudspeaker drivers upon a surface of the horn;
a first pair of loudspeaker drivers operating in a second one of the plurality of frequency ranges, wherein the second one of the plurality of frequency ranges is at a lower frequency than the first one of the plurality of frequency ranges, said first pair of loudspeaker drivers being coupled to a respective one of the multiply segmented portions at a distance from the throat of the horn according to the frequency response of the horn for summation of audio signals generated by each of the respective loudspeaker, wherein said first pair of loudspeaker drivers are coupled acoustically to the horn of the loudspeaker enclosure using the throat ports along an outer surface thereof;
a second pair of loudspeaker drivers coupled to another respective one of the multiply segmented portions of the horn of the loudspeaker enclosure and positioned outwardly and away from the throat operating in a third one of the plurality of frequency range, wherein the third one of the plurality of frequency ranges is at a lower frequency than the first one and the second one of the plurality of frequency ranges, said loudspeaker driver, said first pair of loudspeaker drivers, and said second pair of loudspeaker drivers being acoustically coupled to the horn of the loudspeaker enclosure at respective distances from the throat of the horn for providing a unity summation of an audio sound field at the aperture of the horn;
said first and second pairs of loudspeaker drivers being positioned for coupling the plurality of audio signals operating in the plurality of frequency ranges into the aperture of the horn."
Danley could make the case that any concentric horn were in violation of his patent. But an opponent in litigation could easily argue the point that there are many designs that fit the description of this claim, and that have been sold long before this patent was applied for. Then the validity of the patent itself comes into question. This could become very interesting.
I expect that they will never actually challenge anyone on these grounds because it might cause the PTO to reverse the patent examiner's findings. I'm not sure; I've never seen an issue like this before. This kind of thing has undoubtedly happened, but I've never seen it.
Interesting, yes?
Wayne
Follow Ups:
OK, let's look at this claim point-by-point. Remember, a claim MUST be taken in its entirety! If one part is not new, that does not discount the entire claim. You must show that the entire claim - as stated - had prior art, not just part of the claim, in order for it to be invalid:3. A sound reproduction system for creating a unified sound source field from a plurality of audio signals, comprising:
Single driver horns are not dealt with
a horn of a loudspeaker enclosure having multiply segmented portions according to the frequency response of the horn, comprising a throat and an aperture extending outwardly from the throat;The horn will not be continuous; it is broken up - segmented - into different portions for the purpose of working in different frequency ranges
a loudspeaker driver coupled to the throat of the horn operating in a first one of a plurality of frequency ranges;
Standard compression driver/rear-mounted driver on a horn
a plurality of throat ports for receiving the loudspeaker drivers upon a surface of the horn;We're mounting more drivers on the horn surface, via more throats
a first pair of loudspeaker drivers operating in a second one of the plurality of frequency ranges, wherein the second one of the plurality of frequency ranges is at a lower frequency than the first one of the plurality of frequency ranges, said first pair of loudspeaker drivers being coupled to a respective one of the multiply segmented portions at a distance from the throat of the horn according to the frequency response of the horn for summation of audio signals generated by each of the respective loudspeaker, wherein said first pair of loudspeaker drivers are coupled acoustically to the horn of the loudspeaker enclosure using the throat ports along an outer surface thereof;
We're mounting some midranges down the horn a bit, at the first "break" (second segment) of the horn. Physically placed where the horn transitions from the higher frequency section to the middle frequency section
a second pair of loudspeaker drivers coupled to another respective one of the multiply segmented portions of the horn of the loudspeaker enclosure and positioned outwardly and away from the throat operating in a third one of the plurality of frequency range, wherein the third one of the plurality of frequency ranges is at a lower frequency than the first one and the second one of the plurality of frequency ranges, said loudspeaker driver, said first pair of loudspeaker drivers, and said second pair of loudspeaker drivers being acoustically coupled to the horn of the loudspeaker enclosure at respective distances from the throat of the horn for providing a unity summation of an audio sound field at the aperture of the horn;
We're mounting woofers here, even further down the horn, at the last break. Down where the horn is mainly amplifying the lowest frequencies.
said first and second pairs of loudspeaker drivers being positioned for coupling the plurality of audio signals operating in the plurality of frequency ranges into the aperture of the horn."
We're making sure the positioning of the midranges and woofers (and hence the breaks in the horn, since they are intertwined) allow the drivers to integrate at the exit of the horn. No discontinuities in frequency are allowed; can't have a big dropout
----------
Anyway, there does appear to be a few novel things in this claim - 3 segments for frequency response issues, not for folding purposes, and careful positioning of these segments and their related drivers to create a unified sound field at the exit of the horn.
I don't see how this claim patents concentric horns; concentric horns each have their own flares, and do not space the drivers down the horn as this claim does. If you don't build
1. a horn that has 3 definite segments in its construction
2. Optimizes the segments to be high/mid/low, in that order, from front to back
3. Physically seperates the multiple drivers to each be placed at the start of their segment
4. Sums flat at the horn exitThen you don't violate this claim. Patent language is very specific for a reason, so as to keep the scope of the claims as specific as possible. Sure, every inventor wants the claim as broad as possible, so as to potentially expand license/competitive advantage. But the language used is pretty definitive in what is laid out.
Note, too, that of the 4 summary points, you must violate ALL of them to violate the claim. Violating 1, 2, or 3 doesn't cut it. Not to say that other claims in the patent don't cover other combinations! Rather, to violate a claim, you must violate ALL of the claim, not part of it.
Again, I am not a lawyer, but I've been in enough patent situations - both applications and licensing - that I think I've gotten a pretty good handle on it.
Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio
Hi Dan,Thanks for taking the time to stop by.
Dan's breakdown spells it out quite concisely. I belive Wayne was confused in what was actually patented. It is not any one summary claim, but rather all summary claims and any dependent claims. Many of the claims use phrasing which refers to "a system as recited in claim #..." This translates that the referenced claim must first be met, and then the dependent claim.
Believe me, I've seen a fair number of loudspeaker designers take a first look and say "that can't work" only later to either measure or look further into what is being done and all concur that is does indeed work, and many have stated "I never would have thought of that!" The more insightful designers I have talked with who are working to solve similar problems have generally agreed and called the Unity Sumation Aperture "an elegantly simple solution."
Mark Seaton
Hello again Mark and Dan!Dan - As you looked closely at the claim, I'm sure you found yourself thinking as you wrote. You probably thought that the claim was specific enough to make it pass the examiner with some argumentation, but yet - Yes - there is a case that could be made that any triaxial concentric horn could be described by this claim. After all, such a device is
a. not a single driver horn,
b. broken into sections,
c. having a high frequency driver,
d. having the other drivers connected via separate "connections" or "ports" on its surface,
e. mounting the middle frequency driver on a different section than the high frequency driver,
f. mounting the low frequency driver on a different section than either the HF or MF drivers,
g. coupling the drivers together acoustically so that all signals are delivered through the hornAlso, notice too that since the word "horn" here is not defined, i.e. independant of other claims, the word "horn" can be taken to mean the woofer's cone or any shape of horn device. By this definition, the "Jensen triaxial" car speaker is in violation of this claim. Since it was in existance and sold prior to the time of this patent, I think a valid argument can be made that this claim is invalid.
Others are similarly invalid. Mark - You remember our earlier discussions on this matter. I'm sure the Unity is a reasonably good system, but it does not sum flat, as is claimed in the patent. There are frequency anomalies resulting from elements in the time domain caused by the staggered placement of drivers. As Sam pointed out on this patent thread, you have an HF subsystem further from the listener and an LF subsystem closer to the listener, both in relation to the MF subsystem. This means that you must have one of two conditions:
1. Constantly changing phase response, that moves further away from the listener as frequency goes up.
2. Discontinuities in phase response that break rapidly as crossover is made between drivers.From the response charts you posted on your web site, the latter case is the only one that is supported by your measurement data. There is a diffraction anomaly that looks just like adjacent drivers driven by second-order networks. This is what a person would expect from the staggered positions of the drivers.
This means that the entire premise of the patent is false, and that there is no "unity summation" of phase from this device. It then falls into the "usefulness" condition, where no patent is granted unless the invention performs as described. Your employees may have been able to present evidence that did not include this data, but it is a fact nonetheless. Your own measurements showed it, and so you know that this is true.
I'm sure you probably find me to be "mean spirited" by saying these things. Perhaps so. But the truth is that I think other products your company offers are superb. The Servodrive belt-driven woofer is an excellent idea. I find applications like these in robotics, and had always thought that a great implementation for VLF loudspeakers. The only way to get the kind of parameters needed for single-digit frequency response is by using a motor/pully arrangement like yours or by using a very large linear motor like was used in large disk drives of the seventies. But I just don't think the Unity rises to that level of performance. In fact, I don't think it's a good idea at all. And I don't think that the examiners were dilligent when analyzing your patent application.
Wayne
Wayne,I think the claim as listed is quite clear. It does not say sections ; it says segments . The language used in patents is quite precise, and you should not read any more into the patent than what it states. A triaxial horn would not qualify, since it has multiple sections each comprising an individual horn, not using segments of the same horn, with the driver elements distributed along the length of that singular horn.
At least, that's how I read it. So even if all other parts of the claim were duplicated in a different design, if you don't use a horn consisting of multiple segments (see definition 1a on the link provided), you are not infringing this claim.
If you have to stretch a claim so that a product/design could be covered by it, then in my experience it most likely is NOT infringing that claim. As with all legal documents, the language used is extremely precise, and this is why it is often droll and laborious to read. Exacting definitions must be used so that the patent claims truly cover the invention and the invention only, and are not so broad as to risk invalidation.
Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio
Hi Dan!You wrote:
> > I think the claim as listed is quite clear. It does not say
> > sections ; it says segments . The language used in patents
> > is quite precise, and you should not read any more into the
> > patent than what it states. A triaxial horn would not qualify,
> > since it has multiple sections each comprising an individual horn,
> > not using segments of the same horn, with the driver elements
> > distributed along the length of that singular horn.Perhaps you're right. Certainly in the case of concentric devices containing multiple horns, what you say is true. I'm not sure this would be true of products that have a woofer cone that doubles as a flare for a compression device; While not mentioned in the claims, Figure 3 as well as most of the early implementations of the Unity device were two-way systems. But you may be right, nonetheless.
But what do you think about the technical merits of the described system? The device described is said to acoustically horn-load three separate driver subsystems and remain phase-accurate across the spectrum. This kind of wide-band loading is not possible according to horn theory and being simultaneously frequency-linear and time-linear is not possible according to filter theory.
So we still have the matter of "usefulness" or of "suitability for a particular purpose." Award of a patent requires that the invention do that which is claimed, and the claims include phase unity and wideband acoustic loading. So do you really believe this has been achieved with the Unity device?
Wayne
Wayne wrote:
"Perhaps you're right. Certainly in the case of concentric devices containing multiple horns, what you say is true. I'm not sure this would be true of products that have a woofer cone that doubles as a flare for a compression device; While not mentioned in the claims, Figure 3 as well as most of the early implementations of the Unity device were two-way systems. But you may be right, nonetheless."Dan's examination is correct. A concentric driver would not form a discrete loading point on a common horn with the compression driver in conventional use. Even in the case where the cone forms the horn for the compression driver there would be no subsequent loading of the midrange in a segmented horn. The design is scalable to any number of drivers and horn segments. Obviously to get lower in frequency the horn must have a larger mouth.
Wayne then wrote:
"But what do you think about the technical merits of the described system? The device described is said to acoustically horn-load three separate driver subsystems and remain phase-accurate across the spectrum. This kind of wide-band loading is not possible according to horn theory and being simultaneously frequency-linear and time-linear is not possible according to filter theory."Ok, so let's first address the loading issue separately from the time/space/phase issue. Tom's realization of this means for wide band loading of a variable flare rate horn is the basis of the design working. Looking at a large, variable flare rate horn, in this case a conical horn, it is found that for a given throat size and wall angle, the bandwidth of loading from a driver at the throat is limited, regardless of how far the flare is extended or how large the mouth is. This is nothing new. What Tom made the realization of is that if we look at this same horn in segments, we find that the horn can be segmented such that each segment can provide loading for a given bandwidth, where each segment further from the throat loads a lower frequency band. As such, the more segments which are added by extending the flare, the lower in frequency, and the wider the bandwidth which can be loaded. From what I recall, you can model each section of the horn as a discrete horn with the throat area equal to that of the flare's cross-section at the loading point. The problem with implementing such a design is that discrete horns would by definition be separated in space, and the coverage pattern would be intersecting rather than being one in the same. With the Unity Summation Aperture, we are able to get around this large separation in space, and our coverage pattern is now one in the same, not the intersection of two patterns.
I hope this clears up any confusion with the ability to load the the horn over a wide bandwidth. If this was directly possible according to conventional horn theory, the design would be nothing to speak of. I guess the best way to explain it would be to consider that conventional horn theory (and there are a few different perspectives) suggest this performance is not possible from a single drive unit. We fully agree with this fact, and the Unity Summation Aperture solves this problem using multiple drivers in a new, and unique manner. If you look past the rules of thumb and look at the math behind the horn models, the Unity design does not violate the theories when properly applied to this implementation. I believe Marshal Leach's papers and models co-incide with the design and modeling Tom performed. Realize we also have some proprietary acoustics software which was originally developed for some of the work done with NASA, and is the same software which Tom used to predict the response of the LAB Bass Horn which thus far appears to be matching the predictions rather well.
Now onto this whole time-domain mess...
Maybe the best way to explain this is by posing some questions. First, let us consider a hypothetical, multi-way, single origin driver. Think of a true co-axial driver in the ideal of size. Now, we still need a crossover do divide up the frequency bands between the multiple portions of this multi-way driver. Now, my question to you is this: What happens in the time domain when you introduce a low pass filter?
Answering this question explains the nature of how the horn allows a Time Correct operation. (FYI - "time aligned" is trademarked by some other manufacturer)
Mark Seaton
Hello again Mark!I maintain the position that the Unity horn is not acting as an acoustic transformer for each of its drivers. I use similarly-shaped, large format conical horns as wideband devices too. But I realize that the horn is only loading the driver over a portion of its range, and certainly not loading the entire audio bandwidth.
I also maintain the position that you cannot make this configuration time-linear or "unity summed." I am sure that you have put a lot of work into time-aligning your drivers, but I insist that the time alignment method you chose is an approximation, just like everyone else who uses this sort of technique. Said another way, being an approximation, the device is still not acting as a point source.
One should still expect to use arrays and line source methods for proper coverage.
Wayne
Well, I know what horn theory says, but I also have had a chance to listen to some of these units (TD-1s) and it does work. Also, measurements don't lie - I'm sure Tom and all would be willing to measure a set for someone and show that it works.To me, this says that the horn theory that is documented and published so much about is either wrong (which I don't believe; too strong a correlation between the theory predictions and measured results) or it is a specialized case (where it doesn't consider the effects of drivers mounted partially down the horn, and not at the throat, and the fact they are operating over a narrow bandwidth of the entire horn). My guess is that typical horn theory is really a specialized case.
Much like Bullock showed that PR, vented, or sealed boxes (and to a lesser extent, TLs) are all derivatives of the exact same model. Per the sealed box equations, a vented box doesn't work, and that's why there was a complete seperate set of equations worked up by Benson/Thiele/Small. Bullock created the unified model to show the equations weren't wrong, just specialized and part of a larger, more general solution.
So, having heard the results, and having seen the measurements, I'd have to say the horn does work. The theory needs to be re-examined. Probably not because it's wrong, but because it's not designed to work with this case. All horn theory I can think of assume the driver is loaded in the throat of the horn, and the driver is relatively wideband (operates over the entire range of frequencies that the horn affects); I can't think of one that considers a driver mounted nowhere near the throat, and operating over a much narrower frequency band than the horn as well. Perhaps this is the limiting factor!
Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio
Hi Dan!You wrote:
> > Well, I know what horn theory says, but I also have had a chance
> > to listen to some of these units (TD-1s) and it does work. Also,
> > measurements don't lie - I'm sure Tom and all would be willing to
> > measure a set for someone and show that it works.For several months, measurements of a licensed Unity device were displayed that clearly indicated the fact that there was a frequency anomaly.
> > To me, this says that the horn theory that is documented and
> > published so much about is either wrong (which I don't believe;
> > too strong a correlation between the theory predictions and
> > measured results) or it is a specialized case (where it doesn't
> > consider the effects of drivers mounted partially down the horn,
> > and not at the throat, and the fact they are operating over a
> > narrow bandwidth of the entire horn).Either that or the horn is not, in fact, acoustically loading the diaphragms. Efficiency would be greater if it were.
> > So, having heard the results, and having seen the measurements,
> > I'd have to say the horn does work.Thanks for your objective evaluation.
Take care!
Wayne Parham
Wayne,Nobody ever said that the TD-1 was horn loaded down to 80Hz. That is something you incorrectly inferred. How would you ever get horn loading down to 80Hz from a horn the size of a TD-1. There is nothing to stop you from building a bigger Unity that could be horn loaded down to 80Hz or 20 Hz or whatever, it's all a matter of size.
John
Hello John!You wrote:
> > Nobody ever said that the TD-1 was horn loaded down to 80Hz.
Where did this figure come from?
> > That is something you incorrectly inferred.
I've not mentioned this number, so I made no such inferrence.
> > How would you ever get horn loading down to 80Hz from a horn the
> > size of a TD-1. There is nothing to stop you from building a
> > bigger Unity that could be horn loaded down to 80Hz or 20 Hz or
> > whatever, it's all a matter of size.Yes. But if the horn is loaded at 80Hz, then it will be unloaded below 600Hz. If sized for loading at 20Hz, it will be unloaded by 150Hz. The system will generate output above these frequencies, but it will be lowered in efficiency since the horn is no longer acting as an impedance transformer.
Wayne
Forget your meds?
Andre -We can keep this an intellectual debate, or we can start getting nasty. I don't really care which. But since your comment did not include any part of the former, I assume you prefer the latter.
So go f**k yourself.
Wayne
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
