Ex Parte Pallapothu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2017

13313991 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 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.
13/313,991 12/07/2011 Shyam Sundera Bala Koteswara Gupta Pallapothu 81412558US04 5025
65913 7590 04/19/2017
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
BLAIR, KILE O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2017 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):
ip. department .u s @ nxp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHYAM SUNDERA BALA KOTESWARA GUPTA
PALLAPOTHU, SANDEEP YADAV,
SANIGAPALLY HARINATH REDDY,
and DATTAGURU BN
Appeal 2016-007330
Application 13/313,9911
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—15, which constitute all the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as NXP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-007330
Application 13/313,991
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to audio browsing. Abstract; Figs. 1, 4.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal (disputed limitation
emphasized):
1. An audio playback device, comprising:
a user interface for receiving user commands including a
browse songs command;
a frequency band control unit configured to provide
different songs at different substantially non-overlapping user
audible frequency bands;
a processor; and
an audio playback system comprising at least two
speakers,
wherein the processor is adapted, in response to the
browse songs command, to control the audio playback system to
play back at least two independent songs simultaneously each in
a different one of the speakers, in at least two different
substantially non-overlapping user audible frequency bands,
distributed to appear to the user to originate from different
directions and at different frequencies.
App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTION
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ojala (US 8,380,333 B2; iss. Feb. 19, 2013),
Yamashita et al. (US 8,204,614 B2; iss. June 19, 2012) (“Yamashita”), and
O’Connell (US 5,331,111 B2; iss. July 19, 1994). Final Act. 2—7.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Ojala, Yamashita, and
O’Connell teach the claim 1 limitation an audio playback system comprising
2
Appeal 2016-007330
Application 13/313,991
at least two speakers, wherein the processor is adapted, in response to the
browse songs command, to control the audio playback system to play back
at least two independent songs simultaneously each in a different one of the
speakers. App. Br. 6—9; Reply Br. 2—3.
According to Appellants, the Examiner errs because the cited
references “fail to disclose playing ‘two independent songs simultaneously
each in a different one of the speakers.’” App. Br. 9. In particular,
Appellants argue the Examiner’s reliance on panning is in error because the
“sound [of the claimed inventions] is not a ‘panning’ effect, but rather an
interface and interaction element for a user.” Id. Appellants also argue
“‘playing two independent songs simultaneously . . .’ utilizing the
Applicant’s described interface is new, novel and not present in Ojala,
Yamashita and O’Connell.” Id. at 9—10.
Appellants further argue “[t]he searching feature, with an audio
responsive and visual playback, is not present in the cited references” and
“[t]o be able to search as depicted in FIG. 3 of [the] present application:
while selecting between two songs playing in each ear[], is not present in
Ojala, for example, which discusses audio mixing while searching.” App.
Br. 9—10 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds the cited references teach the claim 1 limitations,
including the disputed limitation. Final Act. 2—5; Ans. 7—15. Regarding the
disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Ojala and Yamashita teach browsing
of independent songs including playback of at least two independent songs
simultaneously in one or more speakers wherein localization can be carried
out by panning. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Ojala 9:29—32, 12:63 to 13:29,
19:18—24; Yamashita 14:34-47, 9:61—64). Regarding each in a different
3
Appeal 2016-007330
Application 13/313,991
one of the speakers, the Examiner finds panning is well known and includes
“hard panning” in which two audio items are each “hard panned” to a
different one of the speakers. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 14. In particular,
the Examiner determines the disputed limitation encompasses “hard
panning” two audio items and finds O’Connell teaches hard panning in
which each song is hard panned to a designated output channel associated
with a different system playback speaker. Final Act. 4 (citing O’Connell
36:35—50; Fig. 19). The Examiner finds “the configuration of audio
distribution of independent songs between different speakers is the exact
same multi-channel distribution of audio sources that is known to those of
ordinary skill in the art as ‘hard panning.’” Ans. 15.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments concerning the interface and search
feature, the Examiner finds no “search feature” is recited in the claims and
Ojala teaches the same browsing concept as claimed with corresponding
audio spatialization. Ans. 15—16 (citing Ojala Figs. 5, 6; 12:3—14, 11:21—
30). See also Ojala browsing media content by moving the 3D rendered
images via sliding finger on the touch screen of the display. Id. (citing Ojala
12:3—8; Fig. 5). The Examiner finds Ojala teaches the claimed user
interface. Final Act. 2 (citing Ojala 10:38-45, 11:10-20, 12:3—11).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. Appellants do not present sufficient
persuasive arguments that the claim terms should be limited to exclude the
teaching of the cited references, including well known panning techniques,
and present no persuasive argument that the Examiner’s findings and claim
interpretations are unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
4
Appeal 2016-007330
Application 13/313,991
the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, Appellants’
arguments are conclusory and argue the references individually whereas the
rejection is based on the combination of the references. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.” (citations omitted)); In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091,1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent method claim 9, which recites the disputed limitation in
commensurate form. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2—8 and 10—15
as these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5