Ex Parte Cutler et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2010

10184499 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROSS CUTLER, IVAN TASHEV, YOUNG RUI,
and ANOOP GUPTA
____________________

Appeal 2009-003679
Application 10/184,4991
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided: May 26, 2010
____________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF, and KARL D.
EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation.
Appeal 2009-003679
Application 10/184,499

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-46 and 55-59.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention relates to an integrated omni-directional camera
and microphone array for video conferencing applications (Spec. 1). The
integrated array consists of a cylindrical rod that is thin enough to be
acoustically invisible for the frequency ranges of human speech and
connects a camera array to a microphone array (Spec. 4).
Claims 1 and 40 are exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A system for capturing audio and video data comprising:
one or more cameras that capture video image data;
an array of microphones, that captures audio signals; and
a cylinder connecting said one or more cameras to said microphone
array, said cylinder being acoustically transparent in the frequency range of
the human voice.

40. An integrated omni-directional camera and microphone array
comprising:
an omni-directional camera;
an acoustically transparent rod that elevates said camera to provide
optimum camera coverage; and
a microphone array.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Washino US 5,625,410 Apr. 29, 1997
Ippolito US 6,072,522 Jun. 6, 2000
Russo US 6,244,759 B1 Jun. 12, 2001

2 Claims 47-54 have been cancelled.
2
Appeal 2009-003679
Application 10/184,499

Ferriere US 6,278,478 B1 Aug. 21, 2001
Nagai US 2002/0012066 A1 Jan. 31, 2002
Powers US 6,439,515 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
Suzuki US 6,628,897 B2 Sep. 30, 2003
May US 6,714,249 B2 Mar. 30, 2004
Gako JP 06-295333 Oct. 21, 1994
Kudo JP 08-032945 Feb. 2, 1996
Oka JP 10-149447 Jun. 2, 1998
Migdoll JP 10-304329 Nov. 13, 1998
Kitagawa JP 11-041577 Feb. 12, 1999
Yamada JP 2000-106556 Apr. 11, 2000
Masai JP 2000-181498 Jun. 30, 2000
Yuasa JP 2000-308040 Nov. 11, 2000
Claims 1-6, 10-16, 20, 22, 25, 55-57, and 59 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito.
Claims 7 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito and Masai.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito and Kitagawa.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito and May.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito and Kudo.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito and Nagai.
3
Appeal 2009-003679
Application 10/184,499

Claims 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito and Yamada.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito and Yuasa.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito and Ferriere.
Claims 27-36, 38, and 40-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito and Oka.
Claims 32, 33, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito, Oka, and Suzuki.
Claims 34 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito, Oka, and Gako.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito, Oka, and Russo.
Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito, Oka, and Powers.
Claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Migdoll in view of Ippolito, Oka, and Washino.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed January 4, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May
8, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 4, 2008) for their
respective details.
ISSUE
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness, because neither Migdoll nor Ippolito teaches an
4
Appeal 2009-003679
Application 10/184,499

acoustically transparent cylinder (or rod) (App. Br. 11). With specific
references to the teachings of Migdoll relied upon by the Examiner,
Appellants argue that Drawing 2 cannot be relied upon to teach that
Migdoll’s “supporter 11” is acoustically transparent, because neither
Drawing 2 nor its supporting description in Migdoll’s Specification
discloses any dimensions for Migdoll’s device (App. Br. 11). Accordingly,
Appellants argue that Migdoll does not explicitly teach an acoustically
transparent cylinder, and also cannot be relied upon to support a finding of
inherency, because Migdoll’s cylinder is not necessarily the proper size to be
acoustically transparent (App. Br. 12-13).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue:
Does Migdoll teach a cylinder or rod that is acoustically transparent in
the frequency range of the human voice?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. Appellant’s Specification discloses that the cylindrical rod “is
thin enough to be acoustically invisible for the frequency ranges of human
speech (50-4000 Hz)” (Spec. 4).
2. The rod connecting the camera and microphone array need not
be cylindrical, as long as it is thin enough to not diffract sound in the (50-
4000) Hz range (Spec. 6).
5
Appeal 2009-003679
Application 10/184,499

Migdoll
3. Migdoll teaches a video camera 9 attached in [sic, by] the
supporter 11 set up by [sic, to] the pedestal 10 (Migdoll ¶ 0020; Drawing 2).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “One of the ways
in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that
there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there
was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-
420.

ANALYSIS
The independent claims at issue in this appeal are claims 1, 27, 40, 55,
and 59. Claims 1, 55, and 59 require a cylinder connecting one or more
cameras to a microphone array, the cylinder being acoustically transparent in
the frequency range of the human voice. Claim 27 recites an acoustically
transparent rod connecting the microphone array to the omni-directional
camera. Claim 40 recites an acoustically transparent rod elevating a camera
to provide optimum camera coverage. All of the claims under appeal are
rejected under § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Migdoll and
Ippolito, some claims involving other references. For all claims, the
6
Appeal 2009-003679
Application 10/184,499

Examiner relies on Migdoll as teaching the claimed acoustically transparent
cylinder or rod.
Appellants argue that Migdoll does not teach the acoustically
transparent cylinder recited in claims 1, 55, and 59,3 because Migdoll
contains no disclosure directed to the size of supporter 11, the object cited
by the Examiner as corresponding to the claimed cylinder (App. Br. 11).
Because Migdoll cannot be relied upon to show particular sizes, argues
Appellants, there is no support for the Examiner’s contention that the
Migdoll supporter is thin, much less that it is thin enough to be acoustically
transparent (App. Br. 11). Appellants agree that the Migdoll supporter could
be thin enough to be acoustically transparent, but further argues that the
absence of any disclosure of its size means that Migdoll cannot be said to
inherently teach an acoustically transparent cylinder (App. Br. 13).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. In rejecting the claims as
obvious over, inter alia, Migdoll in view of Ippolito, the Examiner relies on
Appellants’ disclosure that the cylindrical rod “is thin enough to be
acoustically invisible for the frequency ranges of human speech (50-4000
Hz)” (FF 1). The Examiner concludes from that disclosure that the “main
criterion for the camera rod to be acoustically transparent is that size
(diameter) of the rod should be thin enough to have this property” (Ans. 21-
22). The Examiner then finds that Drawing 2 of Migdoll shows cylindrical
supporter 11, which the Examiner characterizes as “thin enough to meet the
criteria stated in the appellant’s disclosure” (Ans. 22).

3 Appellants make the same argument with respect to the acoustically
transparent rod recited in claims 27 and 40 (App. Br. 26).
7
Appeal 2009-003679
Application 10/184,499

Drawing 2 of Migdoll is reproduced below:

Migdoll Drawing 2 is a perspective view showing the meeting pick-up
equipment. Video camera 9 is attached in [sic, by] the supporter 11 set up by
[sic, to] the pedestal 10 (FF 3).
The Examiner provides no support, however, for his allegation that
supporter 11 is “thin enough” to be acoustically transparent to the relevant
audio frequencies. There is no citation to any dimensions disclosed by
Migdoll, nor any indication that Migdoll considers its supporter 11 to
possess the acoustic transparency property claimed. In the absence of any
disclosed dimensions, it is not possible to compare the size of Migdoll’s
device with the wavelengths of sound in the 50-4000 Hz range and assess
whether Migdoll’s device is acoustically transparent in that range. The
Examiner’s citation of MPEP § 2125, which states that drawings and
pictures can anticipate claims, is similarly unpersuasive. MPEP § 2125 states
that drawings can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which
is claimed. Because Migdoll Drawing 2 lacks any disclosure of dimensions,
Drawing 2 does not clearly show the structure claimed. The Examiner has
8
Appeal 2009-003679
Application 10/184,499

thus not demonstrated that Migdoll’s supporter 11 possesses the property of
acoustic transparency.
Because the Examiner’s finding that Migdoll teaches an acoustically
transparent cylinder (or rod) is erroneous, the Examiner has failed to
establish the prima facie obviousness of independent claims 1, 27, 40, 55,
and 59 or of the claims dependent therefrom. As a result, we will not sustain
the § 103 rejection of claims 1-46 and 55-59.

CONCLUSION
Migdoll does not teach a cylinder or rod that is acoustically
transparent in the frequency range of the human voice.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-46 and 55-59 is reversed.

9
Appeal 2009-003679
Application 10/184,499

REVERSED

ELD

MICROSOFT CORPORATION
C/O LYON & HARR, LLP
300 ESPLANADE DRIVE
SUITE 800
OXNARD CA 93036
10