Ex Parte TachibanaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 13, 201511902720 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MAKOTO TACHIBANA ____________ Appeal 2012-007298 Application 11/902,720 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-007298 Application 11/902,720 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an audio communication apparatus for performing voice communication (Spec. 1:11–13). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An audio communication apparatus for performing communication for at least voice communication, the apparatus comprising: [1] a voice input portion for inputting voice; [2] a voice correction processor portion for performing a voice correction process of the voice input from the voice input portion; [3] a communication portion for performing communication with a far-end communication apparatus; and [4] a controller portion for executing control during voice communication being performed with the far-end communication apparatus through the communication portion such that data regarding a voice correction function of the voice correction processor portion are transmitted from the communication portion to the far-end communication apparatus, and [5] when a modification request for the voice correction function of the voice correction processor portion of the audio communication apparatus is received from the far-end communication apparatus through the communication portion, the voice correction process of the voice correction processor portion is controlled in accordance with the modification request. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 5–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sjoberg (US 5,907,823, issued May 25, 1999) and Haparnas (US 7,392,066 B2, issued June 24, 2008). Ans. 5–18. Appeal 2012-007298 Application 11/902,720 3 The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sjoberg, Haparnas, and Nordman (US 2002/0174073 A1, pub. Nov. 21, 2002). Ans. 19–22. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to claims 1–14 that has been argued by the Appellant. App. Br. 17–43; Reply Br. 3–29. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 22– 37. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellant contends the Examiner is incorrect in finding Sjoberg teaches element [4] of Appellant’s claim 1. App. Br. 19. Particularly, Appellant admits “[t]hough Sjoberg ‘823 discloses that the dynamic range and level conversion controlled by the adjusting unit is determined on the basis of background noise, received signal content and possible other environmental conditions,” Appellant contends, there is no mention of a controller portion for executing control during voice communication being performed with the far-end communication apparatus through the communication portion such that data regarding a voice correction function of the voice correction processor portion are transmitted from the communication portion to the far-end communication apparatus. Appeal 2012-007298 Application 11/902,720 4 Id. at 20. The Examiner finds, and we agree: Sjoberg explicitly teaches data such as speech in speech transmission and receiving operations where both far and near end operations receive dynamically modification based on ambient noise and noise levels. Dynamic speech and noise levels are measured, adjusted, and reproduced for mobile phone users. Ans. 23. Regarding Appellant’s contention that in Sjoberg “[w]hile there is communication between a far-end unit and a near-end unit, this communication is based upon the ambient noise level” (App. Br. 21), Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, because claim 1 does not preclude such a reading. Appellant has for the most part merely recited the claim language and repeatedly stated that there is “no mention” in Sjoberg, Haparnas, or Nordman of the contested limitations (see, e.g., App. Br. 20–22, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34–37, 39, 41, and 43), but has not provided persuasive argument as to how the combined teachings of the cited references differ from Appellant’s invention, particularly in light of the broad claim language. Appellant provided additional arguments with respect to the patentability of claims 3–11 and 13–14 (App. Br. 25–43). The Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments in the Answer by a preponderance of the evidence (Ans. 29–37). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning and adopt them as our own. Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellant’s contentions, we find the weight of the evidence supports the Appeal 2012-007298 Application 11/902,720 5 Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14. DECISION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sjoberg and Haparnas. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sjoberg, Haparnas, and Nordman. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation