Roku, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 10, 20212019004986 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation