Ex Parte YoakumDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201612948140 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 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. 12/948,140 11/17/2010 John H. Yoakum 4366-944 3291 48500 7590 12/22/2016 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER POPE, KHAR YE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2652 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): cjacquet@ sheridanross.com pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com edocket @ sheridanross .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN H. YOAKUM Appeal 2016-003806 Application 12/948,140 Technology Center 2600 Before THU A. DANG, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—19, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-003806 Application 12/948,140 A. THE INVENTION According to Appellant, the invention “relates ... in particular to controlling the audio signals of participants in multiple concurrent conference calls” (Spec. [1]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A computer-implemented method for controlling audio signals associated with a plurality of conferences, comprising: displaying, by a processing device, a user interface that depicts a first defined area and a second defined area, wherein the first defined area is associated with a first conference and the second defined area is associated with a second conference; displaying a first plurality of participant identifiers in association with the first defined area, wherein each of the first plurality of participant identifiers corresponds to a different participant of a plurality of participants in the first conference; determining a plurality of first aural position identifiers based on a position of a corresponding participant identifier with respect to a reference position, wherein each first aural position identifier corresponds to a different one of the first plurality of participant identifiers, and wherein each first aural position identifier is different from the others; determining at least one second aural position identifier associated with the second defined area wherein the at least one second aural position identifier is different from each first aural position identifier; and providing concurrently to an audio output port an audio signal of at least one of the plurality of participants in the first conference at an aural position based on the first aural position identifier corresponding to the at least one of the plurality of participants, and an audio signal of at least one participant in the second conference at an aural position based on the at least one second aural position identifier. 2 Appeal 2016-003806 Application 12/948,140 C. REJECTION Claims 1—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Satapathy (US 7,412,392 Bl; iss. Aug. 12, 2008) and Caspi et al. (US 2009/0086949 Al; pub. Apr. 2, 2009). Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Satapathy, Caspi, and further in view of Gorti et al. (US 2009/0220064 Al; pub. Sept. 3, 2009). II. ISSUE The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Satapathy and Caspi teaches or would have suggested “providing concurrently ... an audio signal of at least one of the plurality of participants in the first conference at an aural position based on the first aural position identifier” and “an audio signal of at least one participant in the second conference at an aural position based on the at least one second aural position identifier” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. ANALYSIS According to Appellant, in the claimed invention, “because the audio signals are aurally positioned via the user interface, the user can visually correlate the audio signals with particular conferences” (App. Br. 7, citing Spec. 110). Appellant thus contends, although the Examiner relies on Caspi to cure these deficiencies of Satapathy, “Caspi does not disclose or contemplate outputting audio signals at different ‘aural positions,’ as provided in claim 1” (id.). That is, Caspi “includes no disclosure or 3 Appeal 2016-003806 Application 12/948,140 suggestion of outputting one or more ‘audio signals’ at specific ‘aural positions’” (App. Br. 8). After reviewing the record on appeal, we find the preponderance of evidence supports Appellant’s position. Even though we agree with the Examiner that “Caspi describes the use of an audio electronic business card” (Ans. 3), and find no error with the Examiner’s interpretation of “aural position identifier” as “voice samples or other integrated voice data” (Ans. 4, citing Caspi 134), we agree with Appellant and do not find any teaching or suggestion in the referenced portions of outputting one or more “audio signals” at the aural positions identified by the aural position identifier (App. Br. 8). That is, even though we agree with the Examiner that Caspi “allows for the display of speaker location” wherein the display “indicates the participant’s name, seating position, and provides an image of the speaking party” {id.), we do not find any disclosure or even a suggestion of outputting the audio signal at the aural position/location, as required by claim 1. To affirm the Examiner’s finding of obviousness would require us to resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We do not resort to hindsight reconstruction, speculation, or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the proffered combination in order to support the Examiner’s rejection. Because we find at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of independent claim 1, independent 4 Appeal 2016-003806 Application 12/948,140 claims 9 and 14 reciting similar limitations, and claims 2—8, 10-13, and 15— 19 depending respectively therefrom, over Satapathy, Caspi, and Gorti. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation