Ex Parte Bruelle-Drews

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 19, 2012

10528870 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/528,870 03/24/2005 Christian Bruelle-Drews 11336/926(P02090US) 6224
81165 7590 01/20/2012
HARMAN - BRINKS HOFER INDY
Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione
CAPITAL CENTER, SUITE 1100
201 NORTH ILLINOIS STREET
Indianapolis, IN 46204-4220
EXAMINER
LAO, LUN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/20/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN BRUELLE-DREWS
________________

Appeal 2009-009940
Application 10/528,870
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant invokes our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-16, 18-25, 27-46, and 49-56. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal 2009-009940
Application 10/528,870

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appealed independent claim 1 is exemplary and reads:

1. An audio system for use in a vehicle, comprising:

a plurality of audio sources connected to an amplifier, the amplifier
comprising a respective balance setting for each audio source and configured
to provide a respective amplified audio signal to each of a plurality of
speakers, where the audio sources are operable to generate a plurality of
audio output signals that are supplied to the amplifier; and

a control unit connected with the amplifier, and configured to adjust the
respective amplified audio signals for each speaker based on each of the
respective audio sources that generates the audio output signal, where the
control unit includes a user interface for independently setting each
respective balance setting of each respective audio source, where the control
unit is further configured to adjust the balance settings based upon a user
selected audio source.

Rejection
The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), rejected claims 1, 6-8, 10,
11, 24, 25, 28, 31-33, and 38-45 as being anticipated by Yasuhara (US
7,190,798 B2; Mar. 13, 2007 (filed Sep. 13, 2002)) (Ans. 3-7).1
Appellant’s Contention
Appellant pivotally contends that the appealed claims are not
anticipated because Yasuhara fails to explicitly or inherently teach providing
audio balance settings to connected speakers based on selecting an audio
source (App. Br. 16, 17, 19, 31, 34, and 39).

1 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103(a) and 112, first paragraph, (Final
Action 2, 8-18) are rendered moot by Appellant canceling the rejected
claims pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.33(b)(1).
Appeal 2009-009940
Application 10/528,870

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 11
Appellant, inter alia, asserts that Yasuhara fails to anticipate the
independent claim 1 recited “control unit [that] is . . . configured to adjust
the balance settings based upon a user selected audio source” (App. Br. 16).
As required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v), Appellant, inter alia, cites to
Specification 3:1-4 as providing explanation for this limitation (App. Br. 9).
The identified disclosure reads:
The amplifier includes a balance setting circuit that allows the
amplifier to control the balance settings of the output signals that are
provided by the audio sources. The audio manager module controls
the balance setting circuit in the amplifier to operate as defined by the
occupant for each audio source or type of source.

(Spec. 3:1-4.) The Examiner concurs that Appellant’s summary of claimed
subject matter, which references the above disclosure is correct (Ans. 2).
Using common and accustomed meanings for claimed terms and applying a
broadly reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we
construe the identified limitation as covering a control unit that causes
adjustment of speaker balance settings based on selecting an audio source.
The Examiner is silent as to any differing construction.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s cited reliance on Yasuhara
disclosures in column 10, line 36 to column 11, line 67 (see Final Action 4;
Ans. 3), and also in column 6, line 13 to column 9, line 42, and Figure 3, is
deficient because Yasuhara neither explicitly nor inherently teaches the
identified limitation (App. Br. 17). The Examiner disagrees and responds
with both a general reference to discussions of claim 1 in the Response to
Argument section of the Answer (Ans. 10) and also a further statement that
Appeal 2009-009940
Application 10/528,870

4
“the [Yasuhara] logic that governs the operation of the controller 80 meets
the audio manager module as claimed” (id.).
Based on our review of Yasuhara and the rest of the record, we concur
with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Yasuhara
anticipates the identified limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 nor do we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6-8, 10, and 11 that incorporate the
not anticipated limitation of independent base claim 1.
Claims 24, 25, 28, and 31
Appellant, inter alia, asserts that Yasuhara fails to anticipate the
independent claim 24 recited “user interface configured to receive an audio
source balance setting for each respective audio source” (App. Br. 25).
The Examiner relies on identical reasons for rejecting claim 24 as
those reported for claim 1 (Final Action 3-4; Ans. 3). Appellant relies on the
arguments asserted for claim 1 being patentable (App. Br. 25), and the
Examiner responds with a general reference to the discussion with respect to
claim 1 in the Response to Argument section of the Answer (Ans. 12).
We also construe the claim 24 identified limitation as covering an interface
configured to cause adjustment of speaker balance settings based on
selecting an audio source. Accordingly, based on our review of Yasuhara
and the rest of the record, we concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding that Yasuhara anticipates the identified claim 24
limitation.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 24 nor do we sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 25, 28, and 31 that incorporate the identified
limitation of independent base claim 24.
Appeal 2009-009940
Application 10/528,870

5
Claims 32, 33, and 38
Appellant, inter alia, asserts that Yasuhara fails to anticipate the
independent claim 32 recited, “reproducing an audio output signal on at least
two speakers based upon a stored selected balance setting for one of the
selected audio sources” (App. Br. 30).
Appellant contends that “Yasuhara contains no disclosure of storing
selected balance settings for the selected audio sources, and Yasuhara cannot
therefore disclose reproducing a stored selected balance setting for one of
the selected audio sources” (App. Br. 31). The Examiner responds that
“regarding selected balance settings, . . . Yasuhara meets the claimed
limitations [as] discussed in detail with respect to claim 1” (Ans. 13), and
that “Yasuhara further teaches the storing memory and MPU
[microprocessor unit] (see Yasuhara, col. 10 lines 25-35)” (Ans. 13).
Based on our review of Yasuhara and the rest of the record, we concur
with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that
Yasuhara anticipates the identified claim 32 limitation (see Reply Br. 14).
For example, we find Yasuhara discloses that “[t]he controller 80 typically
comprises a microprocessor (MPU), a read-only memory (ROM) for storing
control programs and control data, and a random-access memory (RAM) for
providing work areas for operation and for temporarily storing various data”
(col. 10, lines 27-32). However, we do not find balance settings for any
selected audio source either being explicitly or inherently taught as being
stored.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 32 nor do we sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 33 and 38 that incorporate the identified
limitation of independent base claim 32.
Appeal 2009-009940
Application 10/528,870

6
Claims 39-42
Appellant, inter alia, asserts that Yasuhara fails to anticipate the
independent claim 39 recited “a passenger category selection module . . .
configured to receive a user selected passenger category [that] . . . includes a
respective balance setting for each audio source” (App. Br. 34).
The Examiner finds Yasuhara teaches the claim 39 identified
limitation and particularly cites to column 10, line 36 to column 11, line 67
and Figures 1-3, 7, and 9 (Ans. 5-6, 14). Appellant contends that “Yasuhara
does not disclose anywhere the adjustments of balance settings of speakers
based on either a respective audio source or a user selected passenger
category” (App. Br. 35).
We construe the identified claim 39 limitation as covering a user
selecting a passenger category that includes respective balance settings for
each audio source, which is in accord with Appellant’s contention. With this
construction and based on our review of Yasuhara and the rest of the record,
we concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding
Yasuhara anticipates the identified claim 39 limitation.
We, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of claim 39 nor do we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 40-42 that incorporate the
identified limitation of independent base claim 39.
Claims 43-45
Appellant, inter alia, asserts that Yasuhara fails to anticipate the
independent claim 43 recited “receiving a selected passenger category [that]
. . . includes a respective balance setting for each of a plurality of audio
sources” (App. Br. 39).
Appeal 2009-009940
Application 10/528,870

7
The Examiner finds Yasuhara teaches the claim 39 identified
limitation and particularly cites to column 10, line 36 to column 11, line 67
and Figures 1-3, 7, and 9 (Ans. 7, 15-16). Appellant responds with
reproductions of Yasuhara disclosures (Reply Br. 16-17) and contends the
reference does not explicitly or inherently teach the identified limitation
(Reply Br. 16).
We construe the identified claim 43 limitation as covering a user
selecting a passenger category that includes respective balance settings for
each of a plurality of audio sources, which is in accord with Appellant’s
contention. With this construction and based on our review of Yasuhara and
the rest of the record, we concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding Yasuhara anticipates the identified claim 43
limitation.
We, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of claim 43 nor do we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 44 and 45 that incorporate the
identified limitation of independent base claim 43.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16, 18-25, 27-46, and 49-56 is
reversed.
REVERSED

gvw