Ex Parte Charvat

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2016

12806990 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/806,990 08/25/2010
31083 7590 02/19/2016
THOMTE LAW OFFICE, L.L.C.
2120 S. 72ND STREET, SUITE 1111
OMAHA, NE 68124
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James J. Charvat JR.
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.
6120
EXAMINER
MONIKANG, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte JAMES J. CHARVAT JR.
Appeal2014-004133
Application 12/806,990
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies the inventor as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed August 30, 2013
("App. Br."); Appellant's Reply Brief filed December 27, 2013 ("Reply
Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed December 18, 2013 ("Ans."); and Final
Office Action mailed July 15, 2013 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2014-004133
Application 12/806,990
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 7, 11, and 1 7 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a wireless microphone to be worn by a person speaking to
a group of people who are at least partially positioned around the
person;
a shirt to be worn by the said person which includes a front
portion, a back portion and a pair of sleeves;
at least one wireless loudspeaker positioned on said front
portion of said shirt which is in wireless communication with
said wireless microphone;
at least one wireless loudspeaker positioned on said back
portion of said shirt which is in wireless communication with
said wireless microphone;
and at least one wireless loudspeaker positioned on each
of said sleeves which is in wireless communication with said
wireless microphone.
References
Suzuki us 4,876,724 Oct. 24, 1989
Mears US 2003/0063754 Al Apr. 3, 2003
Wiener US 7,035,422 Bl Apr. 25, 2006
Somasundaram et al. US 2009/0304202 Al Dec. 10, 2009
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-13, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mears, Wiener, and Somasundaram.
Final Act. 3-6.
2
Appeal2014-004133
Application 12/806,990
Claims 4---6, 8, 10, 14--16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mears, Wiener, Somasundaram, and
Suzuki. Final Act. 6-7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner erred. See App. Br. 6-13; Reply Br. 1. We are not
persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Rejection of Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-13, 17, and 19
Appellant's arguments with respect to claim 1 do not address the
particular findings of the Examiner and, therefore, are not persuasive of
error. For example, Appellant argues "[t]here is no suggestion in Mears that
the speakers could be mounted on the shirt of a person." App. Br. 6.
However, the Examiner relies on Wiener for teaching a shirt with speakers
mounted on the front and the back of the shirt. Final Act. 4 (citing Wiener;
Figs. lOa, lOb, Abstract, col. 13, 11. 51---60). Appellant also argues "Wiener
discloses sound transducers (loudspeakers) but there is absolutely no
suggestion in Wiener that those loudspeakers could be connected to a
wireless microphone held by the wearer of the garment." App. Br. 6.
However, the Examiner relies on Wiener's disclosure of mounting speakers
on a shirt in combination with Mears' s disclosure of a wireless microphone
used for speaking to a group of people, concluding it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings.
Final Act. 4--5. Appellant does not provide persuasive arguments rebutting
the Examiner's rationale for combining the references.
3
Appeal2014-004133
Application 12/806,990
Appellant further argues that, in Somasundaram, the speaker is a
teacher facing the students, so the students are not "at least partially
positioned around the" teacher, and, therefore, "there would be absolutely no
reason to utilize a wireless loudspeaker mounted on the back portion of the
person's shirt which is in wireless communication with the wireless
microphone." App. Br. 6-7. We are not persuaded because Wiener
explicitly teaches speakers on the back of a shirt, as found by the Examiner.
Final Act. 4 (citing Wiener, Fig. 1 Ob (depicting four "sound transducers
816" on the back of the garment); col. 13, 11. 51-60).
Furthermore, we note that the recitation in the independent claims that
the microphone is "to be worn by a person speaking to a group of people
who are at least partially positioned around the person" is not a limitation to
the claimed apparatus itself. Regardless, the Examiner finds Mears's public
address system teaches or suggests a person speaking to at least two people
who partially surround the speaker (Final Act. 3, Ans. 7-8), and Appellant
has not addressed this finding.
Because we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's conclusion
of obviousness, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as the rejection of independent claims 7, 11 and
17, for which Appellant offers no additional persuasive arguments for
patentability.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, and 19, Appellant
merely repeats the limitation of each claim and adds a conclusory assertion
that the limitation is not suggested in the prior art. "A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Therefore,
4
Appeal2014-004133
Application 12/806,990
we also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection of Claims 4-6, 8, 10, 14-16, 18, and 20
With respect to dependent claim 4, Appellant argues Suzuki does not
teach or suggest that the devices that are removably positioned in the
pockets are "wireless" speakers. App. Br. 10. We are not persuaded
because the Examiner relies on Suzuki for teaching speakers that are
removably mounted in pockets in combination with the teachings of wireless
speakers in other references, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Final
Act. 7 (citing Suzuki, Figs. 1, 6 (14-14a, 16-16a, 18-18a, 20-20a); col. 4,
11. 48-51, col. 1, 11. 42-53).
Appellant advances similar arguments with respect to dependent
claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 14--16, 18, and 20, which we find unpersuasive for the
same reason. See App. Br. 10-12. We further note that claims 14--16, 18,
and 20 do not recite "wireless" speakers, and, therefore, Appellant's
arguments for these claims are also not persuasive because they are not
commensurate with the scope of these claims.
Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the
rejection of claims 4--6, 8, 10, 14--16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5