Roku, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 10, 2021

2019004986 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2021)

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.
14/755,833 06/30/2015 David SHARP 3634.0350001 7954
176536 7590 02/10/2021
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
SPRATT, BEAU D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2021 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):
e-office@sternekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID SHARP
Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–16, and 18–21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a restoring a disabled display
device speaker. More specifically, the claimed subject matter determines

1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Roku, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833

2
whether a display’s internal speaker (e.g., a television’s built-in speaker) are
disabled and, if so, in response to determining an external sound system is
unavailable and receiving a volume change command, prompting the user to
enable either the display’s internal speaker or the external sound system.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A display device, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory connected to the processor, the memory storing
instructions that when executed by the processor cause the
processor to:
when displaying content, determine whether an
internal speaker of the display device for playing audio
associated with the content is disabled,
in response to a determination that the internal
speaker is disabled, determine whether an external sound system
associated with the display device is unavailable,
receive a command to change volume of the display
device, and
in response to a determination that the external
sound system is unavailable and to receiving the command to
change the volume, provide a prompt, wherein the prompt
includes an option to enable the internal speaker of the display
device or the external sound system associated with the display
device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Chen US 2006/0238656 A1 Oct. 26, 2006
Hung US 2009/0154900 A1 June 18, 2009
Das US 2014/0173447 A1 June 19, 2014
Apodaca US 2014/0363024 A1 Dec. 11, 2014

Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–10, 12–16, and 18–20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Apodaca and Hung. Final Act. 2–10.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Apodaca, Hung, and Das. Final Act. 10–11.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Apodaca, Hung, and Chen. Final Act. 11.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 as a
group. See Appeal Br. 8–16. Appellant argues that the dependent claims are
allowable only based on their dependency from one of independent claims 1,
9, and 15.
The Examiner finds the combination of Apodaca and Hung teaches or
suggests every limitation recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15. Final
Act. 2–9. More specifically, the Examiner finds Apodaca teaches or
suggests every limitation recited in independent claim 1 (and
commensurately recited in independent claims 9 and 15), except “in
response to a determination that the internal speaker is disabled, determine
whether an external sound system associated with the display device is
unavailable,” as recited in claim 1, but the Examiner finds Hung teaches this
step. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Apodaca ¶¶ 108, 115, Figs. 10A, 10B; Hung
¶¶ 16, 19–22); see id. at 5–6, 8–9.
Apodaca describes devices, methods, and user interfaces to control
volumes in different zones, wherein each zone has a zone player (e.g., a
speaker, a set of speakers, or a device, such as a television, including
speakers and/or a display) that can play audio and/or video. Apodaca ¶¶ 24–
Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833

4
27, 67; see id. ¶¶ 42, 49, Abstract. Audio and/or video content that may be
played back on the zone players may come from a zone player or from any
other source, for example from music or cloud services, other devices (e.g., a
CD player or a television) connected to a zone player, or any other
accessible source. Apodaca ¶¶ 65–66. The user interfaces may be displayed
on controllers (e.g., tablets, computers, and smart phones) that have a screen
for displaying such interfaces. Apodaca ¶¶ 51–54, 74–77. A controller,
which may “be integrated into a zone player,” is configured to control the
zone players’ volumes. Apodaca ¶ 76.
Below are exemplary interfaces for controlling the volumes:

Apodaca, Figs. 10A, 10B depicting exemplary interfaces for media content
playback volume control of a group of playback devices.
Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833

5
Figure 10A depicts an exemplary interface presented when audio
content is played that shows the content being played and associated
information. Apodaca ¶ 107. Zone identifier 1020 indicates that the content
currently is being played in three zones—“LIVING ROOM” and two other
zones (“KITCHEN” and “DECK,” as can be seen in Figure 10B) grouped in
the Living Room zone. Apodaca ¶ 107. In order to control the playback
volumes of the zone players, a user may select control icon 1022. Apodaca
¶ 108.
In response to a user selecting control icon 1022, Apodaca displays an
interface, such as the exemplary interface depicted in Figure 10B (the
“volume control interface”), which allows a user to control the zone players’
volumes. Apodaca ¶¶ 107–108. This interface may include controls, such
as slide bars and indicators, for displaying and controlling (increasing or
decreasing) the zone players’ volumes either individually (regions 1056,
1058, 1060) or as a group (region 1054). Apodaca ¶¶ 113–117. Each of the
four regions (one each for the three zones—“DECK,” “KITCHEN,” and
“LIVING ROOM”—and one for controlling the whole group) includes a
speaker icon that graphically indicates to the user whether the zone players
are muted. In Figure 10B, the speaker icon for the “LIVING ROOM” has an
“X” after it and is encompassed by a dashed circle indicating that the
“LIVING ROOM” zone player currently is muted. Apodaca ¶ 115,
Fig. 10B.
The Examiner finds Apodaca’s disclosure that selecting control icon
1002 causes the system to display the volume control interface teaches
“receiv[ing] a command to change volume of the display device.” Final
Act. 3 (citing Apodaca ¶ 108, Fig. 10A). The Examiner finds Apodaca
Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833

6
teaches “when displaying content, determine whether an internal speaker of
the display device for playing audio associated with the content is disabled.”
Final Act. 3 (citing Apodaca ¶¶ 42, 115, Fig. 10B). We understand the
Examiner’s finding to be based on the suggestion that Apodaca determines
whether each speaker is muted—i.e., “disabled”—in order to accurately
indicate whether each speaker zone is muted in the volume control interface,
Apodaca teaches. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that displaying
Apodaca’s volume control interface, which includes options to unmute (i.e.,
enable) or mute (disable) each speaker, in response to a user selecting
control icon 1002 teaches or suggests “in response to a determination that
the external sound system is unavailable and to receiving the command to
change the volume, provide a prompt, wherein the prompt includes an option
to enable the internal” or external speakers. Final Act. 3 (citing Apodaca
¶¶ 108, 115, Fig. 10B).
The Examiner further explains that Apodaca discloses a controller that
displays these screens may also be a playback device having a speaker, and
the controller can mute or unmute (i.e., disable or enable) speakers that are
part of or external to (i.e., internal or external) the controller/playback
device. Ans. 15–16 (citing Apodaca ¶ 76). We understand the Examiner’s
explanation to support the findings that (1) Apodaca teaches determining
whether internal speakers are disabled because certain zone players would
be part of the controller and, thus, would be considered “internal” speakers
and (2) Apodaca teaches providing a prompt to enable those internal
speakers or “external” speakers that are Apodaca’s other zone players.
Hung describes systems and methods for controlling audio and video
output to internal and external displays and speakers depending on the
Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833

7
operation of two switches to avoid redundant playback. Hung ¶¶ 1–7,
Abstract. Hung receives a first instruction in response to a user activating a
first switch and a second instruction in response to a user activating a second
switch. Hung ¶ 13. Hung has a control module that can enable and disable
the internal display and speaker. Hung ¶ 14. The control module includes a
detection module, which detects whether an external device is sending audio
visual (AV) output requests and generates a corresponding signal, and a
switch module, which “enables and disables the internal display 104 and the
internal speaker 106 correspondingly according to the first instruction, the
second instruction, and the connection status signal.” Hung ¶¶ 14–15.
Hung may disable the internal display and speaker if external devices
are connected, “which means that the internal display and internal speaker
may not be needed.” Hung ¶ 16. More specifically, Hung discloses that,
when its control module receives first instructions in response to the first
switch being activated, its detection module “generates the connection status
signal indicating whether there is any external display or speaker
connected.” Hung ¶¶ 19–21. If Hung detects “that an external speaker or
display is present, the switch module 124 disables the internal display104
and the internal speaker 106.” Hung ¶ 22. If, however, Hung either detects
no external speaker/display or that the second switch was activated, “the
switch module 124 disables the internal display 104, while keeping the
internal speaker 106 enabled.” Hung ¶ 23. The Examiner finds Hung
teaches “in response to a determination that the internal speaker is disabled,
determine whether an external sound system associated with the display
device is unavailable” because Hung can disable the internal speaker if Hung
Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833

8
detects the presence of external speakers and displays. Final Act. 3–4 (citing
Hung ¶¶ 16, 19–22).
Among other arguments, Appellant asserts Hung does not teach or
suggest determining whether external speakers are unavailable in response to
a determination that the internal speaker is disabled. Appeal Br. 9–14. In
particular, Appellant argues Hung starts from a state in which the internal
speaker is enabled and, depending on the instruction received, Hung may
disable the internal speaker or leave it enabled. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant
contends that, in contrast to Hung, the claimed subject matter recites that
determining whether an external speaker is unavailable is done “in response
to the determination that the internal speaker is disabled.” Appeal Br. 11–
13.
Hung teaches determining whether an external speaker or sound
system is unavailable. Hung ¶ 21 (“the detection module 122 generates the
connection status signal indicating whether there is any external display or
speaker connected to the output module 110”), Fig. 2 (S208). However,
Hung teaches determining whether external speakers are connected in
response to determining that a received instruction was the first instruction,
which results from activating the first switch. Hung ¶ 21. Thus, Hung does
not teach determining whether the external speakers are unavailable “in
response to a determination that the internal speaker is disabled,” as recited
in representative claim 1.
Even ignoring the particular labeling of internal and external speakers,
we see nothing in Hung that teaches or suggests determining whether one
speaker or sound system is unavailable in response to a determination that a
different speaker is enabled. To the extent the Examiner finds Hung teaches
Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833

9
this disputed feature because Hung disables the internal speaker in response
to determining the external speaker is available, that is not what
representative claim 1 recites. Representative claim 1 does not recite
disabling any speakers and, instead of determining whether a second speaker
is unavailable in response to determining whether a first speaker is disabled,
Hung disables the second speaker in response to determining the first
speaker is available.
Appellant also argues Apodaca fails to teach or suggest providing a
prompt including an option to enable the internal or external speakers “in
response to a determination that the external sounds system is unavailable
and to receiving the command to change the volume.” Appeal Br. 14–16.
More specifically, Appellant argues that, although Apodaca provides volume
controls (including indications regarding volume levels and whether the
speaker(s) are muted) for zones, Apodaca does not provide these controls “in
response to a determination that the external sound system is unavailable and
to receiving the command to change the volume.” Appeal Br. 15–16.
Once again, we agree with Appellant. For purposes of this Decision,
we accept the Examiner’s findings that (1) selecting control icon 1002
teaches or suggests “a command to change the volume” even though this
command merely brings up another screen that allows a user to change
various volumes and (2) Apodaca’s volume control interface teaches or
suggests a “prompt include[ing] an option to enable the internal speaker of
the display device or the external sound system associated with the display
device” because it provides options to mute or “enable” muted speakers that
may be either part of or external to the controller. Nevertheless, even
accepting these findings, we do not see anything in Apodaca that teaches the
Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833

10
recited dependency. In particular, we disagree with the Examiner that
Apodaca teaches providing the volume control interface “in response to”
both receiving volume change command and a determination that the
external sound system is unavailable because Apodaca teaches presenting
the volume control interface in response to only selecting control icon 1002
regardless of the state of any speaker.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection
of independent claims 1, 9, and 15, which recite the disputed steps, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Apodaca and Hung. Nor do we sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 4–6, 8, 10, 12–14, 16, and 18–20, which depend
therefrom and incorporate the disputed steps, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Apodaca and Hung. The Examiner does not find either Das or
Chen cures this deficiency. Therefore we do not sustain the rejections of
claims 7 and 21, which depend from and incorporate the disputed steps of
claims 1 and 15 respectively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Apodaca and Hung in combination with Das and Chen respectively.
Appeal 2019-004986
Application 14/755,833

11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6, 8–10,
12–16, 18–20
103 Apodaca, Hung,
Hung
1, 2, 4–6, 8–10,
12–16, 18–20
7 103 Apodaca, Hung,
Das
7
21 103 Apodaca, Hung,
Chen
21
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–10, 12–
16, 18–21

REVERSED