Ex Parte Lehtiniemi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2018

13431405 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/431,405 03/27/2012 Arto Juhani Lehtiniemi P6209US00 9617
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
01/29/2018 EXAMINER
WEBER, JOY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTO JUHANI LEHTINIEMI, JUHA HENRIK ARRASVUORI,
and ANTTI JOHANNES ERONEN
Appeal 2017-009407
Application 13/431,405
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-009407
Application 13/431,405
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a system capable of providing a
location-tagged user interface for media sharing (Spec. 124). Exemplary
claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining one or more media profiles associated with
at least one point of interest;
causing, at least in part, a rendering of a graphical user
interface, the graphical user interface including a presentation
of one or more real world images;
causing, at least in part, a rendering of at least one user
interface element in association with at least one representation
of the at least one point of interest, wherein the user interface
element is included in the graphical user interface and
represents, at least in part, the one or more media profiles; and
causing, at least in part, a rendering of at least one input
connection component, at least one output connection
component, or a combination thereof for interacting with the at
least one user interface element, the one or more media profiles,
or a combination thereof, for specifying at least one acoustic
media processing effect associated with at least one structural
feature of the at least one point of interest for rendering one or
more media files.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Woods et al. (US 2013/0054319 Al; published Feb. 28, 2013)
(“Woods”), Mattila et al. (US 2010/0328344 Al; published Dec. 30, 2010)
(“Mattila”), Seon (KR 10-2011-0038425 A; published Apr. 14, 2011), and
Nguyen et al. (US 2012/0117502 Al; published May 10, 2012) (“Nguyen”)
(see Final Act. 2—15).
2
Appeal 2017-009407
Application 13/431,405
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
A claim under examination is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the underlying Specification. See In re Am.
Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the
absence of an express definition of a claim term in the Specification or a
clear disclaimer of scope, the claim term is interpreted as broadly as the
ordinary usage of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art would permit.
See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007); see also In re Morris, YU F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations
contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim
limitations that are not a part of the claim. See SuperGuide Corp. v.
DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Obviousness
The Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement of
demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references to
show obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415—16
(2007); see also In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“KSR directs that an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
references is not necessary to support a conclusion of obviousness.”).
Further, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
3
Appeal 2017-009407
Application 13/431,405
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner
has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions and concur with
the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as explained below.
Independent Claims 1 and 11
Appellants contend the combination of cited references fails to teach
or suggest,
causing, at least in part, a rendering of at least one input
connection component, at least one output connection
component, or a combination thereof for interacting with the at
least one user interface element, the one or more media profiles,
or a combination thereof, for specifying at least one acoustic
media processing effect associated with at least one structural
feature of the at least one point of interest for rendering one or
more media files
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 11 (see App.
Br. 6—10; see also Reply Br. 2—3). More specifically, Appellants argue
Woods does not disclose or suggest the aforementioned limitation (see App.
Br. 7). Appellants further argue Mattila merely discloses a media file related
to downloading music, where the download is not used with a media
processing effect, and thus, Mattila also does not disclose or suggest the
aforementioned limitation (see id.). Appellants also argue that Nguyen’s
objective is to optimize sound output from loud speakers based on a room
layout, and that, given the differences in the stated objectives of Woods and
Nguyen, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have turned to Nguyen’s
disclosure to remedy any deficiency in Woods’ stereoscopic three-
dimensional, virtual environment that is presented on a display (see App.
4
Appeal 2017-009407
Application 13/431,405
Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2). Appellants further argue Seon fails to cure the
deficiencies of Woods, Mattila, and Nguyen (see App. Br. 9).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention. As explained by the
Examiner, Woods teaches a three-dimensional environment displayed on a
display screen, where the three-dimensional environment includes a building
and a content listing, and where the content listing includes an interface that
allows a user to view a playlist, edit a playlist, import a playlist, or export a
playlist to a device or service (see Final Act. 3^4 (citing Woods ]Hf 125—126;
Fig. 17); see also Ans. 2—3). We also agree with the Examiner that Mattila
teaches a user interface that displays augmented reality content, where the
augmented reality content includes a virtual pyramid object representing a
music store and a virtual beam linking the virtual pyramid object to a
physical object, and where clicking on the virtual pyramid object initiates a
download of music content from the store and further causes the virtual
beam to pulsate during the download (see Final Act. 5 (citing Mattila ]Hf 18,
45; Fig. 5D); see also Ans. 3).
Relying on Nguyen, the Examiner correctly finds the reference
teaches a graphical user interface that displays a visual representation of a
room, where the graphical user interface allows a user to input a speaker’s
position and additional characteristics of the room (e.g., furniture, windows,
walls, etc.) and determines the best layout of speakers to output sound
generated by the speaker, and where the speaker layout takes into account
the room characteristics (see Final Act. 7—8 (citing Nguyen || 36, 38, 41—43,
48, 53, 123, 128—129, 132; Figs. 4, 17—20); see also Ans. 3). We further
agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to modify the media processing effect taught by Woods/Mattila to
5
Appeal 2017-009407
Application 13/431,405
include an audio media processing effect associated with at least one
structural characteristic of a room for rendering media files, as taught by
Nguyen, in light of Nguyen’s teaching that providing a precise sound
placement within a room creates a benefit of an enhanced surround sound
experience (see Final Act. 8 (citing Nguyen 135); see also Ans. 3 4).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they attack the
references individually rather than the Examiner’s combination of
references, as the arguments criticize Woods, Mattila, and Seon for failing to
teach or suggest features (i.e., an acoustic media processing effect associated
with a structural feature of a point of interest for rendering media files) that
the Examiner relied upon Nguyen as teaching. Additionally, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument regarding Nguyen because the argument
fails to address the Examiner’s finding that Nguyen teaches a motivation for
modifying the media processing effect taught by Woods/Mattila to include
an audio media processing effect associated with at least one structural
characteristic of a room for rendering media files, as taught by Nguyen.
Appellants further contend none of the cited references teaches or
suggests associating an acoustic media processing effect with a structural
feature of a point of interest (see App. Br. 8—9; see also Reply Br. 2—3).
Appellants assert their Specification describes an audio processing effect
associated with a particular location, and none of the cited references
associate an acoustic media processing effect with a structural feature of a
point of interest (see App. Br. 8—9 (citing Spec, 95—96; Fig. 4D); see also
Reply Br. 2—3).
This contention is not persuasive either. We agree with the Examiner
that the claims merely recite an acoustic media processing effect associated
6
Appeal 2017-009407
Application 13/431,405
with a structural feature of a point of interest, and that the claims do not
specify a particular type of acoustic media processing effect, structural
feature, or point of interest. Although Appellants’ Specification provides
examples of different types of acoustic media processing effects, structural
features, or points of interests, we decline to import these examples into the
claims, as they are not limitations of the claim.
Thus, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in finding that the
combination of cited references teaches or suggests all the elements of
claims 1 and 11. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims (see App. Br. 9—10). We, therefore, sustain their rejections for the
reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1 and 11.
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
7