Ex Parte Huang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2016

13609874 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/609,874 09/11/2012
65358 7590 11/17/2016
WPAT, PC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS
8230 BOONE BL VD. SUITE 405
VIENNA, VA 22182
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hung-Chi Huang
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.
67407-269 8107
EXAMINER
SHIBRU, HELEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2016 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
Ex parte HUNG-CHI HUANG
Appeal2015-006585 1
Application 13/609,874
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-22. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention is directed to a television for simultaneously
playing back multiple audio content in different languages, wherein the
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MStar Semiconductor, Inc.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-006585
Application 13/609,874
playback contents are not translations of one another. Spec. ilil 21, 24, Fig.
2A.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1.
A playback method, for a video/audio playback apparatus,
compnsmg:
receiving a first playback data and a second playback data;
converting first character information in the first playback data to a
first speech data; and
simultaneously playing the first speech data and a second-speech data
corresponding to the second playback data, wherein the second speech data
is not a translation result of the first speech data;
wherein, the first and the second speech data respectively correspond
to a first playback language and a second playback language.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Hirayama us 6,128,434 Oct. 3, 2000
Xie US 2003/0200858 Al Oct. 30, 2003
Murase US 2006/0140590 Al Jun.29,2006
Smith III US 2007/0261084 Al Nov. 8, 2007
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Murase, Xie, and
Hirayama.
2
Appeal2015-006585
Application 13/609,874
Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Murase, Xie, Hirayama, and
Smith.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7-19, and the Reply Brief, pages 19-21. 2
Appellant argues that the combination of Murase, Xie, and Hirayama
does not teach or suggest simultaneously playing back a first speech data in
a first language and a second speech data in a second language, wherein the
latter speech data is different, and is not a translation of the former. App. Br.
7, 8. According to Appellant, Murase' s disclosure of a movie disc providing
users the option of playing back a video stream and an audio stream in mono
or stereo mode in one of a plurality of languages does not teach or suggest
simultaneously playing back different audio contents in different languages.
Id. (citing Murase i-fi-146-49). Further, Appellant argues that Hirayama's
disclosure of simultaneously playing back the same audio content in
different languages does not cure the admitted deficiencies of Murase. Id. at
9, 10 (citing Hirayama 6:31-51). These arguments are persuasive.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding Murase
teaches simultaneously playing back two different audio contents in two
different languages. Ans. 9. Murase discloses simultaneously playing back
a video stream and an audio stream in a selected one of a plurality of
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 30, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed June
24, 2015) and the Answer (mailed April 24, 2015) for their respective
details.
3
Appeal2015-006585
Application 13/609,874
languages. Murase ilil 46-49, Fig. 42A-C. At best, Murase teaches splitting
the single audio stream into two different channels for simultaneous
playback in stereo mode in the selected language. Id. at Figs. 42B, 42C.
Further, we agree with Appellant that although Hirayama discloses
simultaneously playing back audio contents in different languages, the
contents being played are translations of each other. Hirayama 6:31-58.
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection, we need not reach Appellant's remaining arguments.
Consequently, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2-22, which recite the disputed limitations discussed above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1-22.3
3 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider
rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable over the combination of Xie and
Hirayama. Xie teaches converting the text of a book into a first audio
stream, e.g., English, and playing that audio stream while simultaneously
playing a background music audio stream. Xie does not limit the
background music to instrumental music, and can therefore be music having
lyrics in a second language, such as an Italian opera. Common knowledge
teaches it is well known that background music can be sung in a different
language, e.g., a movie depicts a couple having a romantic dinner and
conversing in English while an Italian opera plays in the
background. Hirayama confirms it was known to simultaneously play two
audio streams in different languages. Therefore, it would have been obvious
to have the two audio streams in Xie be in different languages - for example
an English speaker can have the text of the book converted to an English
audio stream while listening to background music in the form of an Italian
opera.
4
Appeal2015-006585
Application 13/609,874
REVERSED
5