Ex Parte Gough et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201613259458 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/259,458 09/23/2011 22879 7590 10/03/2016 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David Gough 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. 82853152 5756 EXAMINER MCCORD, PAUL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2656 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID GOUGH and CARLOS 0. MONT AL VO Appeal2015-008224 Application 13/259,458 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee et al. (US 2005/0135643 Al; Jun. 23, 2005) and Zeng et al. (US 2010/0057472 Al; Mar. 4, 2010). Final Act. 3--4. Claims 2, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee, Zeng, and Harvey et al. (US 2006/0193482 Al; Aug. 31, 2006). Final Act. 4--5. Appeal2015-008224 Application 13/259,458 Claims 3-9, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee, Zeng, and Coats et al. (US 2005/0147254 Al; Jul. 7, 2005). Final Act. 5-7. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "an electronic audio device that is adapted to be connected to a speaker." Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the disputed limitation emphasized: 1. An electronic audio device to be connected to a speaker, the electronic device comprising: an audio subsystem to receive an input audio electrical signal; and an equalizer to apply a transfer function that comprises a two-stage bandpass function thereto to produce an output audio electrical signal, the transfer function being dependent at least in part upon a frequency response of the speaker, wherein the two-stage bandpass function is selected to emphasize a lmv-frequency peak and a high-frequency peak. ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1 AND 10 OVER LEE AND ZENG The Examiner finds Lee and Zeng teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 5-10. Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Lee teaches a two-stage bandpass function is selected to emphasize particular frequencies, but Lee does not explicitly teach emphasizing a low-frequency peak and a high-frequency peak. See Final Act. 3--4 (citing Lee i-f 40). The Examiner finds Zeng teaches: 2 Appeal2015-008224 Application 13/259,458 A system and method for adapting the output by selectively amplifying or attenuating particular frequency ranges of a signal based upon a selected output device. (Zeng: Abstract: Fig 1, 4, 5) The Zeng filters function to selectively instantiate filtering coefficients upon plural frequency bands thereby generating an output signal based upon the response of a selected output device. (Zeng: i-f 7 4-81; Fig 1, 4, 5) Final Act. 4. The Examiner reasons: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to emphasize the response of plural frequency elements as taught by Zeng by performance of amplification/attenuation using the Lee system and method. The average skilled practitioner would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of adding significant frequency components to an output signal response and would have expected predictable results therefrom. Final Act. 4. Appellants present the following principal arguments: 1. Zeng discloses management of power consumption of an output device by selectively enabling or disabling various filter stages. Thus, contrary to Appellant's disclosure, Zeng fails to teach or suggest any filters selected to emphasize any frequency profile. Instead, Zeng merely discloses selection of filter stages to control power consumption. Therefore, Zeng fails to teach or suggest any "bandpass function [] selected to emphasize a low-frequency peak and a high-frequency peak," as recited in claims 1 and 10. App. Br. 6-7. 11. "Rather than addressing the problem addressed by Appellant's disclosure, Lee provides a system in which a flat frequency profile is sought." App. Br. 8. 3 Appeal2015-008224 Application 13/259,458 Zeng discloses frequency compensation while managing power consumption. In this regard, Zeng discloses "enabling or disabling one or more of the [filter] stages. In this manner, power consumption of the filter may be managed by enabling and/or disabling one or more s[t]ages." Zeng, Abstract. Thus, like Lee, Zeng addresses problems that are entirely different from those addressed by Applicant's disclosure. App. Br. 8. 111. Lee does not teach the disputed limitation. See Reply Br. 1-3. We are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor are we persuaded of any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's finding that Lee and Zeng, collectively, teach the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 3--4. We also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's reasons for combining the references. See Final Act. 4. In considering the disclosure of a reference, "it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Zeng (Abstract (emphasis added)) discloses: a filter in a hardware audio CODEC may be configured based on power consumption and based on a frequency response of an active output device to which the filter is communicatively coupled. The filter may comprise a plurality of filter stages, which may be, for example, bi quads, and the filter may be configured by enabling or disabling one or more of the stages. Zeng' s plurality of filter stages configured based on the active output device contemplates non-flat responses for the filter to match the output device. Further, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred (Preda, 401 F.2d at 826) that Zeng's non-flat response emphasizes any one 4 Appeal2015-008224 Application 13/259,458 or more frequencies to match the active output device such as, for example, two frequencies. Thus, Zeng suggests, to a skilled artisan, the two-stage bandpass function (Zeng' s plurality of filter stages) is selected to emphasize a low- frequency peak and a high-frequency peak (Zeng configures the filter based on the frequency response of the active output device). See Zeng Abstract; see also Zeng i-fi-1 7 4-81. Contrary to Appellants' arguments (i) and (ii), Zeng does not disclose configuring the filter only based on power consumption; rather, Zeng discloses a filter may be configured based on a frequency response of an active output device. See Zeng Abstract, i-fi-1 7 4--81. With further regard to Appellants' argument (ii), we also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's reasons for combining Lee and Zeng. See Final Act. 4. Regarding Appellants' argument (iii), the argument does not show any error in the Examiner's findings because the Examiner finds Lee and Zeng, collectively, teach the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 3--4. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as claim 10, which is not separately argued with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 2, 11, AND 13 OVERLEE, ZENG, AND HARVEY The Examiner finds Lee, Zeng, and Harvey teach all limitations of claims 2, 11, and 13. Final Act. 4--5. Appellants do not argue claims 2, 11, and 13 with particularity. See App. Br. 8. 5 Appeal2015-008224 Application 13/259,458 We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 11, and 13. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3-9, 12, 14, AND 15 OVERLEE, ZENG, AND COATS The Examiner finds Lee, Zeng, and Coats teach all limitations of claims 3-9, 12, 14, and 15. Final Act. 5-7. Appellants do not argue claims 3-9, 12, 14, and 15 with particularity. See App. Br. 9. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-9, 12, 14, and 15. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 is affirmed. 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 ). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation