|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.6
In Reply to: Karlson did this years ago posted by FTF on October 21, 2005 at 07:25:00:
Sorry, no. The "opening curtain" baffle on the Karlson enclosure was a load for the woofer backwave and had little to do with Constant Directivity.
Follow Ups:
http://home.planet.nl/~ulfman/
The Karlson site describes the enclosure as bass reflex with an open exponentially cut port. The driver is coaxial. Again, nothing to do with constant directivity or my invention.
There is many many references to the radiation control through the use of a slot. You just didn't read it.Many prosound manufactures also use slots for directional control in line arrays today. It is quite effective but nothing new.
There's a lot of stuff there, and you're right, I at any rate didn't read it all. Just the theory page.
- This signature is two channel only -
The implementation for planar speakers is new and sufficiently different from prior art to warrant issuance of a patent to me.
"The implementation for planar speakers is new and sufficiently different from prior art to warrant issuance of a patent to me."I'm patent examiner myself and deal with prior art search, judgement on novelty and inventive step every day.
As you might know, a patent is granted for inventions which are new AND involve an inventive step. Using a known device/solution in a similar application may not be considered as being inventive since the skilled person, in this case the speaker designer, would recognize the known technical advantages of the known device/solution and simply implement them. Your waveguide on a planar speaker may well be new, but if there were similar waveguides used on cone driver speakers I for one would raise an objection for reasons of lack of invenive step.
Of course, it depends on what prior art the examiner is able to retrieve during his search. Note that there is lots of prior art that has never made its way into a commercialized product so you may not be aware of that art.
Well do I know of which you speak. In my youth, for five years, I prepared translations for patent attorneys in Munich. Claims, disclosures, continuations, challenges, searches, Examiner communications, opponents filings, the works.Now, my patent attorney is sure we can differentiate my invention from the prior art (patent attorneys are always sure they can do that). Plus we are obliged to make the Patent Office aware of ANY prior art, no matter how obscure or tangential. Helpful posters to my forum and elsewhere have sent more than one of these along.
I've never seen anything like our CD device on a planar system. Have you??
In almost every case you can differentiate the invention (as claimed) from prior art, but this will mean that the claim is probably very restricted, which limits your possibilities and my hence be of no great interest, commercially speaking.
The corresponding units in our European classification which would have to be searched, contain about 1300 documents, you most certainly don't know them all. You are obliged to cite prior art in the application, but what you cite will be only a fraction of what's actually existing. If not, a prior art search would not be needed.I'm searching US classes whenever appropriate, does the USPTO examiner search European classes?
I did not look at all 1300 documents, and I don't know how your claims are drafted, but from my quick search I would conclude that an inventive step objection might be possible. The fact that your waveguide panel is (possibly) new on planar speakers does not automatically mean it's also inventive. But that depends on what documents the examiner finds and how he approaches the inventive step issue. I know from personal experience, that for those applications which are treated by USPTO first and then go the European route, in most cases we at EPO find better documents than the USPTO. And I had also cases where the US examiner granted the claim and I rejected it, using the very same documents.
Good luck in any case.
I can see how using it with a planar is different. Don't much care about the patent but congratulations. I just see many parallels of what you are doing and what Karlson and others have been doing for years.How do you eliminate standing waves and cancelation between the element and the slot and still bend the wave?
Close proximity and absorption inside the slot and under the wave guide.I think I mistook you for one of the many hostile trolls in this thread. My apologies. You can email me with specific questions since this site has a no-advertising policy and too much technical information about the invention might be construed as promotional material.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: