Ex Parte Tsurumi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

13274802 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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