HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 8, 2019

14505094 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2019)

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.
14/505,094 10/02/2014 Aman GARG P140152US
HRMN/0107US
8688
98031 7590 11/08/2019
Artegis Law Group, LLP - Harman
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
MAUNG, THOMAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2019 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):
algdocketing@artegislaw.com
jmatthews@artegislaw.com
kcruz@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte AMAN GARG, DAVIDE DI CENSO, and
RAGHAVENDRA CHIDRI
____________________

Appeal 2019-000691
Application 14/505,094
Technology Center 2600
____________________
Before J. JOHN LEE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 19, 20, and 26–34, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18, and 21–25 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Harman
International Industries. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000691
Application 14/505,094

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The present invention relates generally to a media presentation system
that physically actuates a media content presentation device towards a
particular location. Spec. ¶¶ 1–2, Abstract. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative of the claims on appeal and recites:
1. A mount for a media content presentation device, the
mount comprising:
a base member;
a support member coupled to the base member and
adapted to physically couple to the media content presentation
device;
a first computing device disposed within the base member
and configured to wirelessly receive location data and media
content from a mobile device being carried by a user and output
the media content to the media content presentation device using
a different connection; and
an actuating device that is communicatively coupled to the
first computing device and operates to move the support member
based on one or more locations of the user determined using the
location data at one or more corresponding points in time.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable in view of Desenberg2 and McCarty.3 Final
Act. 2–10.

2 Desenberg, US 2012/0027226 A1, published Feb. 2, 2012.
3 McCarty, US 2012/0121104 A1, published May 17, 2012.
Appeal 2019-000691
Application 14/505,094

3
Claims 4, 11, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable in view of Desenberg, McCarty, and Carlsson.4
Id. at 10–14.
Claims 8, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable in view of Desenberg, McCarty, and Naka.5 Id. at 14–17.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
in view of Desenberg, McCarty, and Kechichian.6 Id. at 17–18.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
in view of Desenberg, McCarty, Kechichian, and Carlsson. Id. at 18–19.
Claims 31 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable in view of Desenberg, McCarty, and Lee.7 Id. at 19–21.
ANALYSIS
All of the Examiner’s rejections depend, at least in part, on Desenberg
and McCarty. Final Act. 2–21. Appellant presents arguments relating to
those references only and does not address the Examiner’s rejections
separately. See Appeal Br. 10–14. Further, Appellant essentially argues all
rejected claims together and does not address any claim separately. See id.
As explained below, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
First, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Desenberg and McCarty teaches “wirelessly receiv[ing]
location data and media content from a mobile device being carried by a
user,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 9

4 Carlsson, US 2015/0256954 A1, published Sept. 10, 2015.
5 Naka, US 2010/0053466 A1, published Mar. 4, 2010.
6 Kechichian, US 2014/0024317 A1, published Jan. 23, 2014.
7 Lee, US 2007/0266395 A1, published Nov. 15, 2007.
Appeal 2019-000691
Application 14/505,094

4
and 16. Appeal Br. 10–13; Reply Br. 3–6. Appellant argues that the
combination “would result in a stationary device, not a mobile device that is
carried by a user and transmits both location data and media content to a
media presentation system.” Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 5. Appellant further
argues Desenberg does not teach that its “wearable transmitter wirelessly
transmits media content.” Appeal Br. 12; see id. at 11; Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Desenberg
teaches “wirelessly receiv[ing] location data . . . from a mobile device being
carried by a user.” Final Act. 3. To support that finding, the Examiner relies
on Desenberg’s description of “a radio frequency transmitter 16c” that is
“worn or otherwise attached to [a] person” and that transmits the person’s
movement data to an audio speaker system. Desenberg ¶ 39. The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, McCarty teaches “wirelessly receiv[ing] media
content.” Final Act. 4. To support that finding, the Examiner relies on
McCarty’s description of a home network system that wirelessly transmits
an audio input device’s audio signal to output speakers. Id. citing (McCarty
¶¶ 5, 7); see McCarty ¶¶ 50, 106, Fig. 1.
Appellant’s argument that the combination of Desenberg and McCarty
“would result in a stationary device, not a mobile device” (Appeal Br. 12;
Reply Br. 5) relies on the premise that McCarty’s audio input devices (which
transmit audio signals) are wired to McCarty’s transmitter and, as such,
those components are “stationary and not intended to be mobile.” Appeal
Br. 11–12 (emphasis omitted). However, contrary to Appellant’s argument,
McCarty teaches “a mobile device.” As the Examiner finds (Ans. 24),
McCarty describes that its audio input devices may be positioned at
“portable locations” (McCarty ¶ 51; see id. ¶ 5), i.e., mobile locations.
Appeal 2019-000691
Application 14/505,094

5
Furthermore, as discussed above, McCarty discloses that the network
through which its devices communicate may be “wireless.” McCarty ¶ 50.
Appellant has not persuasively explained why McCarty’s portable audio
input device fails to teach a mobile device. Because we agree with the
Examiner that McCarty teaches a mobile device, Appellant’s argument that
the combination would result in a stationary device is unpersuasive.
Moreover, even if we agreed with Appellant that McCarty describes
stationary components, that argument does not address the Examiner’s
combination of Desenberg and McCarty. Combining Desenberg’s mobile
device and McCarty’s wirelessly received media content does not require
bodily incorporating McCarty’s alleged stationary components. See In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the
inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
invention under review”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).
Furthermore, Appellant has not provided persuasive argument or evidence
that combining McCarty’s wireless media content transmission with
Desenberg’s mobile device would transform Desenberg’s mobile device into
a stationary device. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Desenberg and McCarty teaches “wirelessly
receiv[ing] location data and media content from a mobile device being
carried by a user.”
Similarly, Appellant’s argument that Desenberg does not teach
wirelessly transmitting media content (Appeal Br. 12; see id. at 11; Reply
Br. 4) does not address the Examiner’s reliance on McCarty to teach such a
feature (Final Act. 4–5 (citing McCarty ¶¶ 5, 7; see id. ¶ 50, Fig. 1)).
Appeal 2019-000691
Application 14/505,094

6
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Desenberg and McCarty teaches “wirelessly receiv[ing]
location data and media content from a mobile device being carried by a
user,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 16.
Appellant also argues the Examiner improperly combined Desenberg
and McCarty. Appeal Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant argues McCarty
teaches away from “a first computing device configured to wirelessly
receive media content from a mobile device being carried by a user” because
McCarty’s “receiver components are capable of receiving audio signals only
via a stationary IR transmitter.” Id.
We are not persuaded. To teach away, a reference must “criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant has not shown where McCarty
criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages wireless transmission of
media content from a mobile device to a speaker system. As such,
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive for this reason alone. Furthermore,
as discussed above, McCarty teaches that its audio input devices—which
ultimately transmit media content wirelessly to McCarty’s speakers—may
be mobile devices. McCarty ¶ 51. Thus, McCarty also does not teach away
from wirelessly receiving media content from a mobile device because
McCarty expressly describes an embodiment in which a mobile device
transmits media content.
For the reasons explained above, we adopt the Examiner’s findings
and sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16 as obvious in view of
Desenberg and McCarty. Appellant does not present separate arguments for
dependent claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 19, and, thus, we also sustain the rejection
Appeal 2019-000691
Application 14/505,094

7
of those claims as obvious in view of Desenberg and McCarty. See Appeal
Br. 10–15. Further, Appellant also does not present any other arguments
with respect to claims 4, 8, 11, 15, 20, and 26–34. See Appeal Br. 10–15.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of these claims as well.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 7, 9, 13,
14, 16, 19
103 Desenberg,
McCarty
1, 6, 7, 9, 13,
14, 16, 19

4, 11, 26, 28,
30, 32, 33
103 Desenberg,
McCarty,
Carlsson
4, 11, 26, 28,
30, 32, 33

8, 15, 20 103 Desenberg,
McCarty, Naka
8, 15, 20
27 103 Desenberg,
McCarty,
Kechichian
27
29 103 Desenberg,
McCarty,
Kechichian,
Carlsson
29
31, 34 103 Desenberg,
McCarty, Lee
31, 34
Overall
Outcome
1, 4, 6–9, 11,
13–16, 19,
20, 26–34

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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED