Ex Parte Mayman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2017

11513957 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2017)

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.
11/513,957 08/31/2006 Avrum G. Mayman B038-US 4970
71016 7590
Bose Corporation
Patent Group
Mountain Road, MS 3B1
Framingham, MA 01701
09/22/2017 EXAMINER
PAUL, DISLER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2017 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 @ bose. com
designs @ bose. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AVRUM G. MAYMAN, SCOTT TALBOT YEWELL, LEE
ZAMIR, and LASZLO DRIMUSZ1
Appeal 2015-002354
Application 11/513,957
Technology Center 2600
Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and
DEMETRA J. MILLS, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—5, 7—18 and 20-41, directed to a docking station for a handheld
media device, and a receiving station. The claims have been rejected as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Bose Corporation. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-002354
Application 11/513,957
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses a docking station for a handheld media
device comprising a housing and a docking port for mechanically coupling
the handheld media device to the docking station. The docking port includes
an interface that makes a wired electrical connection to the handheld media
device, and the docking station housing includes circuitry for receiving
content from the handheld media device and a speaker that is coupled to the
circuitry to produce an audible signal from the content received from the
handheld media device through the interface. The docking station housing
also includes a transmitter that is coupled to the circuitry and wirelessly
transmits the content received from the handheld media device to a remote
speaker for producing another audible signal on the remote speaker at
substantially the same time as the first audible signal. Spec. 1:8—18.
In addition, “a receiving station is disclosed that comprises a housing
and a receiver, integrated within the housing, that receives from a docking
station a wireless signal that represents content provided to the docking
station from a handheld media device.” Id. at 2:3—6. “The receiving station
also includes a speaker, integrated within the housing . . . [and] a transmitter,
integrated within the housing, which wirelessly transmits a signal to control
operations of the docking station.” Id. at 2:7—12. “For example, a wireless
signal may be sent to switch the audio content source from the handheld
media device [ ] to equipment connected to an auxiliary jack (e.g., a CD
player, cable television, or satellite radio receiver) included in the docking
station.” Id. at 11:13—16.
2
Appeal 2015-002354
Application 11/513,957
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1—5, 7—18 and 20-41 are on appeal. Claims 1, 15, and 27 are
independent. Claims 1 and 15 are representative and read as follows, with
disputed limitations italicized:
1. A docking station for a handheld media device,
comprising a housing; a docking port in the housing for
mechanically coupling the handheld media device to the
docking station; an interface disposed within the docking port
to make a wired electrical connection to the handheld media
device; circuitry within the housing for receiving content from
the handheld media device; a speaker included in the housing
and coupled to the circuitry to produce a first audible signal
from content received from the handheld media device through
the interface; and a transmitter included within the housing and
coupled to the circuitry, the transmitter is configured to
wirelessly transmit content received from the handheld media
device to a receiving station that has a remote speaker for
producing a second audible signal on the remote speaker,
wherein the first and second audible signals are produced at
substantially the same time, the docking station further
including a receiver to wirelessly receive a signal from the
receiving station to control operations of the docking station.
15. A receiving station comprising a housing; a
receiver integrated within the housing to receive from a docking
station a wireless signal that represents content provided to the
docking station from a handheld media device and information
to control operations of the receiving station, a speaker
integrated within the housing and coupled to the receiver to
produce an audible signal from the received wireless signal, and
a transmitter integrated within the housing to wirelessly
transmit a signal to control operations of the docking station.
3
Appeal 2015-002354
Application 11/513,957
The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
Chen
McCarty et al.
Asada
Schul et al.
Romesburg
Curtis et al.
US 2004/0037433 Al
US 2005/0195986 Al
US 2005/0265559 Al
US 7,095,867 B2
US 2007/0060054 Al
US 8,150,460 B1
Feb. 26, 2004
Sept. 8, 2005
Dec. 1, 2005
Aug. 22, 2006
Mar. 15,2007
Apr. 3,2012
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
Claim(s) Reference(s)
I 1^1, 8,9, and 11-13 Curtis and Asada
II 5 Curtis, Asada, and
Romesburg
III 7 Curtis and Asada
IV 10 Curtis, Asada, and
Chen
V 14 Curtis, Asada, and
Schul
VI 15, 20, 23-29, 32-34, 36, and 38-
41
Curtis
VII 16-18 and 30 Curtis and Romesburg
VIII 21 Curtis and McCarty
IX 22 and 35 Curtis and Chen
X 31 Curtis
XI 37 Curtis and Schul
4
Appeal 2015-002354
Application 11/513,957
OBVIOUSNESS
Issue
There are eleven separate rejections of the claims, but the dispositive
issues for all of the rejections are similar. The issue raised with respect to
claims 1—5 and 7—14 is whether the Examiner has established that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include a receiver in
the docking station to wirelessly receive a signal from the integrated
receiving station/remote speaker to control operations of the docking station,
given the teachings of Curtis in combination with one or more additional
references. Similarly, the issue raised with respect to claims 15—18 and 20-
41 is whether the Examiner has established that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to include a transmitter in the integrated
receiving station/remote speaker to wirelessly transmit a signal to control
operations of the docking station, given the teachings of Curtis, alone or in
combination with one or more additional references.
Findings of Fact
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence of record.
1. Curtis discloses an accessory for a portable electronic device,
such as a digital music player. The accessory includes a docking port
“adapted to couple to the portable electronic device such that audio signals
from the portable electronic device can be transferred to the accessory.”
Curtis 1:62—65. The accessory also includes two speakers, at least one of
which is detachable—i.e., wireless. Id. at 1:65—66, 3:20-26. The accessory
receives audio signals from the portable electronic device coupled to the
5
Appeal 2015-002354
Application 11/513,957
docking port, and the audio signals are transmitted to the speakers “such that
a user can listen to music . . . over the speakers.” Id. at 3:55—62.
2. Curtis further discloses that “[a] wireless remote control is used
to control the playback of the audio files stored on the portable electronic
device over the accessory’s speakers.” Curtis 2:11—13.
3. Asada discloses a system “for correcting sound fields formed
by sounds output from speakers to space by ... a multichannel audio system
or the like” (Asada 13). Asada's system involves “time alignment” of
audible signals emitted from multiple speakers “so that sounds emitted from
the speakers can reach the listening position with the same timing” (id.
111), based on the “the structure of a listening room and the listening
position of the listener to the speakers” (id. 1 5).
4. Romesburg discloses a wireless remote control for controlling
the operations of a television. Romesburg 132, Fig. 1.
5. Chen discloses a multichannel wireless audio system that
provides selective wireless transmission of selected audio channels to
individual speakers. Chen || 8, 20, 21, 23.
6. Schul discloses a portable audio reproduction system with
powered speakers and a satellite radio receiver. Schul 3:4—6, 29-32.
7. McCarty discloses a “system for distributing one or more
signals, via a wired and wireless medium, for a home theater system,”
designed to “do[] away with the routing of unsightly speaker wires
throughout a listening area.” McCarty H 2, 5.
6
Appeal 2015-002354
Application 11/513,957
Discussion
The Examiner finds that Curtis, alone or in combination with one or
more additional references, discloses all the limitations of all the claims on
appeal, except that “the prior art lacked the specific as wherein ‘the receiver
in the docking station to receive the control signal form the receiving
station,’” as required by claim 1. Ans. 3, 4; Final Act. 6. Similarly, the
Examiner acknowledges that “the prior art lacked the ‘the receiving station
having a transmitter integrated within a housing to wirelessly transmit a
signal to control operation of a docking stations’,” as required by
independent claims 15 and 27. Ans. 5; Final Act. 11. Nevertheless, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to incorporate those features in Curtis’ accessory device,
given Curtis’ disclosure of a “device with transmitter for controlling the
docking station”—i.e., remote control 88. Ans. 5.
Appellants contend that claim 1 “calls for the docking station to
further include a receiver to wirelessly receive a signal from the receiving
station to control operations of the docking station.” App. Br. 5. According
to Appellants, however, “[i]n Curtis the receiver is merely arranged to only
receive signals from a remote control 88, not from either of the wireless
speakers 66 which do not include a transmitter.” Id. at 6. Similarly,
Appellants contend that independent claims 15 and 27 require a receiving
station with an integrated receiver and wireless speaker, the receiving station
further “having a transmitter integrated within a housing to wirelessly
transmit a signal to control operations of [the] docking station.” Id.
Again, the Examiner acknowledges that neither Curtis nor Asada
discloses a receiver in the docking station “to receive the control signal
7
Appeal 2015-002354
Application 11/513,957
[from] the receiving station” as required by claim 1. Ans. 4. Nevertheless,
the Examiner contends:
[I]t would have been obvious based on the known features as
already disclose by the prior art to have been obvious, for one of
the ordinary skills in the art to modify “the receiver which
receive the signal from the device (separate remote control
device)”, by implementing or integrate the device with the
receiving station (remote speaker), that is combine the receiving
station with the remote control device if desired which yield the
same predictable result based on the combination based on the
engineering preference so as to control the operation of the
docking station as originated form the singular station unit
instead of separate remote control.
Id.
Similarly, as discussed above, the Examiner acknowledges that the
prior art relied on lacks “the receiving station having a transmitter integrated
within a housing to wirelessly transmit a signal to control operation of a
docking station” as required by independent claims 15 and 27. Ans. 5. The
Examiner contends, however, that
[I]t would have obvious for one of the ordinary skills in the art
to have modified the separate receiving station and device to
control the docking station as noted in Curtis by implemented
such transmitter being integrated within the housing of the
receiving station if desired based on the designer's preference
which yield the same predictable result so as to control the
operation of the docking station as originated form the singular
station unit instead of separate remote control.
Id. The Examiner further contends that “the idea of taking two separate
units and integrating] them into a singular unit to perform the same function
is obvious.” Id.
Having considered the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that
8
Appeal 2015-002354
Application 11/513,957
the cited references support a prima facie case of obviousness. At best, the
Examiner has established that most of the elements of the claimed invention
were known in the art. In any case, even if the Examiner had established
that all of the elements of the claimed invention were known in the art, an
invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to include a transmitter in
any of Curtis’ or Asada’s speakers in order to control the operation of the
docking station from the integrated receiving station/remote speaker,
“instead of [a] separate remote control.” See Ans. 4, 5. That is, the
Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
had a reason to transfer the function of a hand-held remote control to a
remote speaker.
What is lacking in the rejection is “a reason that would have prompted
a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the
way the claimed new invention does” in the first place. Id. The Examiner
has, therefore, not provided an adequate basis to support a conclusion of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Appeal 2015-002354
Application 11/513,957
SUMMARY
The Examiner has not established that the claimed invention would
have been obvious over the prior art relied on.
Accordingly, all eleven of the rejections of the claims as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
10