Ex Parte TsurumiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201613274802 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 1946-0471 6899 EXAMINER SAUNDERS JR, JOSEPH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2655 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/274,802 10/17/2011 142241 7590 12/29/2016 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 Shingo Tsurumi 12/29/2016 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 SHINGO TSURUMI Appeal 2016-001909 Application 13/274,802 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-001909 Application 13/274,802 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5—14. Claims 3 and 4 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to an acoustic control apparatus. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. An acoustic control apparatus comprising: a speaker-position computation section configured to find the position of each of a plurality of speakers located in a speaker layout space on the basis of a position computed as the position of a microphone in the speaker layout space based on an image of a user and sound collection carried out by the microphone, wherein the image includes at least the microphone or an object placed at a location close to the position of the microphone, and wherein a result of the sound collection is carried out by the microphone to collect a signal sound each generated by one of the speakers; an image processing section configured to process the image, wherein the image processing section extracts any of metadata of the user in the image, the number of users shown in the image, or a gesture made by the user shown in the image; and an acoustic control section configured to carry out control of a sound generated by each of the speakers by computing the position of the user in the speaker layout space on the basis of the image of the user, computing the distance between the position of the user and the position of each of the speakers, and controlling sounds generated by the speakers according to the computed distances, wherein the acoustic control section makes use of the distance between the position of the user and the position of each of the speakers in order to dynamically change positions used for setting sounds generated by the speakers, and 2 Appeal 2016-001909 Application 13/274,802 wherein the acoustic control section performs at least any of processing of setting sounds generated by the speakers and adjusting the quality of the sounds in accordance with any of the metadata of the user, the number of users shown in the image, or the gesture made by the user shown in the image. Claims 1, 2, 5—9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Angeloff (US 2011/0069841 Al; Mar. 24, 2011). Claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Angeloff and Hardacker (US 2009/0304205 Al; Dec. 10, 2009). §102 Rejection—Angeloff We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 11—15; see also Reply Br. 4—6) that Angeloff does not describe the limitation “adjusting the quality of the sounds in accordance with any of the metadata of the user,” as recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner found that regulating the speaker volume of Angeloff, according to the position of the listener (i.e., player of a gaming system), corresponds to the limitation “adjusting the quality of the sounds in accordance with any of the metadata of the user.” (Final Act. 2, 4.) In particular, the Examiner found that because “metadata is simply data about data, Angeloff discloses metadata of the user in the form of depth images about positional information of the user.” (Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 3.) We agree with the Examiner. Claim 1 recites “metadata of the user” (emphasis added). One relevant plain meaning of “metadata” is “[djata about data.” Microsoft® 3 Appeal 2016-001909 Application 13/274,802 Computer Dictionary 336 (5th ed. 2002). This definition of “metadata” is consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which discloses the following: The acoustic control section 115 controls a sound generated by each of the speakers 5 by carrying out sound- source-position determination processing to determine the position of each sound source serving as a virtual speaker for one of the physical speakers 5 as a position proper for the position of the user and carrying out sound-quality adjustment processing according to the characteristic of the user. A typical example of the characteristic of the user is the metadata of the user. The metadata of the user includes the gender of the user and the age thereof (Spec. 25:11—21 (emphasis added).) Appellant’s Specification further discloses that “the age/gender determination portion 133 pays attention to characteristic portions of the detected face in order to determine the age of the owner of the face and the gender of the owner” and “is capable of extracting information including the age and the gender as metadata of the user.'” (Spec. 31:8—14 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s Specification, we interpret “metadata of the user” as data about the user (i.e., the user being “data”), including, but not limited to age and gender of the user. Angeloff relates to “[vjolume adjustment based on listener position” (Abstract), for example, modem console gaming systems having multi channel surround sound (11). Figure 2 of Angeloff illustrates an example of vision-based computing system 202 for tracking the position of player 200 (i.e., listener) (| 19), including capture device 204 to visually identify the position of a player 200 (120). In particular, Angeloff explains that “[t]he depth image(s) of the scene with player 200 at position 212 may then be used by computing system 202 to obtain positional information, e.g., 4 Appeal 2016-001909 Application 13/274,802 coordinates of player 200 and/or particular part of player 200 within a three- dimensional world space.” (122; see also id. ]Hf 49, 55.) Angeloff further explains that based on player position tracking, sound volume emitted from sound sources may be regulated. (122; see also id. 138.) Because computing system 202 of Angeloff obtains position information about player 200 and adjusts sound volume based on such position information, Angeloff discloses the limitation “adjusting the quality of the sounds in accordance with any of the metadata of the user.” Appellant argues that paragraphs 22, 38, 49, and 55 of Angeloff “do[] not relate to the claim recitations of ‘adjusting the quality of the sounds in accordance with any of the metadata of the user, the number of users shown in the image, or the gesture made by the user shown in the image. (App. Br. 13—14 (emphasis omitted).) In particular, Appellant argues, “there is absolutely no disclosure of the term ‘metadata’ in Angeloff’ and “the Examiner’s definition of ‘metadata’ as ‘simply data about data’ is simply incorrect, unreasonable, and overly broad.” (App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 5.) Similarly, Appellant argues, “a mere position of a user as taught by Angeloff does not reflect a personal characteristic of a user, but rather is a spatial relationship unrelated to anything personal about the user.” (Reply Br. 5.) However, as discussed previously, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, the limitation “metadata of the user” is broad enough to encompass positional information for player 200 of Angeloff because positional information is data about such player 200 (i.e., the claimed “user”). Moreover, although Appellant’s Specification provides non-limiting examples of the limitation “metadata of 5 Appeal 2016-001909 Application 13/274,802 the user,” such as gender and age, the Specification is silent with respect to such “metadata” being personal to the user. (See Spec. 25:11—21, 31:8—14.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Angeloff discloses the limitation “adjusting the quality of the sounds in accordance with any of the metadata of the user.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Claims 2, 5—7, and 9 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5—7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claim 8 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the rejection of claim 8, as well as dependent claim 12, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. §103 Rejection—Angeloff and Hardacker Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 separately (App. Br. 17), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant merely argues, “Angeloff fails to teach or suggest every element of each of independent claims 1 and 8, upon which claims 10-11 and 13—14 depend” and “Hardacker fails to remedy the deficiencies of Angeloff, taken either alone or in combination.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments 6 Appeal 2016-001909 Application 13/274,802 for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8, from which claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5—14 is affirmed. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation