Ex Parte Champion

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

13137552 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017)

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.
SONY-54602 4291
EXAMINER
SIEGEL, DAVID F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/137,552 08/25/2011
102824 7590 03/17/2017
HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, LLP
162 N. WOLFE ROAD
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086
Mark Champion
03/17/2017 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 MARK CHAMPION
Appeal 2017-000740
Application 13/137,552
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, BETH Z. SHAW, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—21, 23, and 24, which are the only claims
currently pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is for an audio signal source used as a server to
provide audio or audiovisual data to electronic devices. Spec. 123.
Appeal 2017-000740
Application 13/137,552
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A system for managing content, the system comprising:
a transceiver for making a direct digital connection
between a plurality of audio speakers and a server over which
said server provides a plurality of signals to said plurality of
audio speakers; and
a remote control unit, wherein said remote control unit
controls output of said plurality of signals from said server to
said plurality of audio speakers;
wherein said transceiver communicates with said remote
control unit, said remote control unit communicating with said
transceiver and with said server over said digital connection
between said plurality of audio speakers and said server,
wherein said plurality of signals is provided over electrical
wiring which also supplies power, wherein said plurality of
signals provide different audio programming to said plurality of
audio speakers.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Abecassis (US 6,192,340 Bl, Feb. 20, 2001) and
Lee (US 5,757,936, May 26, 1998). Final Act. 6-27.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejections are in error.
App. Br. 4—10; Reply Br. 2—6. Appellant presents multiple arguments as to
why the Examiner has erred. We address the dispositive issues in turn.
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding one ordinarily skilled
in the art would have recognized the combination of cited references teaches
2
Appeal 2017-000740
Application 13/137,552
or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 1—21, 23, and 24. We refer to,
rely on, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. See Ans. 22—30; Final Act. 6—27.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites, in part, “a transceiver for making a direct digital
connection between a plurality of audio speakers and a server over which
said server provides a plurality of signals to said plurality of audio
speakers.” Appellant argues that the claims have been amended to specify
that the transceiver makes a direct digital connection with the speakers.
App. Br. 5. Appellant argues Abecassis does not teach this limitation
because Abecassis teaches connecting or communicating between two
computers, whereas “the presently claimed invention involves a computer
and speakers.” Id.
The Examiner responds that the content reproduction devices of
Abecassis are understood to make a connection to speakers because the
speakers are included in the content reproduction devices. Ans. 24 (citing
Abecassis, 8:63, 9:37—38, 10:43). The Examiner points out that Figure 2 of
the Specification is identical to prior art element 436 in Figure 4 of
Abecassis, which is a content reproduction device including everything in
the device 103 of Figure 2 of the Specification. Id. The Examiner finds
that, when a device of Abecassis is communicating signals to another device
of Abecassis, the communication is directly from the one device to the other
and is accomplished digitally. Id. The Examiner also points out that
Appellant presently “claims a generic digital connection” and that the argued
3
Appeal 2017-000740
Application 13/137,552
features distinguishing from such a generic connection “are not presently
claimed[,] and any further context to further define such features must be
explicitly stated in the claims.” Id. at 25.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding Abecassis discloses digital
communications. Final Act. 7 (citing Abecassis 28:2—10). We also agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Abecassis’s multimedia player has a built-
in speaker. Ans. 24; Final Act. 7; Abecassis, Figure 4, 8:52—63, 10:43.
Abecassis discloses providers and multimedia players and that servers and
multimedia players communicate directly. Id. (citing Abecassis, Fig. 4,
11:4—16). Although Appellant argues that the speaker, as claimed, is
different than Abecassis’s multimedia player that includes a built-in speaker,
Appellant provides insufficient evidence the claims limit the requirement for
a “speaker” such that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, it is not
taught or suggested by Abecassis’s multimedia player with a built-in
speaker. Id.
Appellant also argues that Abecassis and Fee do not teach “wherein
said plurality of signals provide different audio programming to said
plurality of audio speakers.” App. Br. 6—8. Appellant argues, although
Abecassis may teach multiple signals which go to different computers,
Abecassis does not teach providing different audio programming to said
plurality of audio speakers. Id. at 6. As the Examiner explains, however,
the Examiner relies on Abecassis, and not Fee, to teach this element. Ans.
29. As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s general
argument that a speaker, as claimed, is not encompassed by Abecassis’s
teachings of a multimedia player with a built-in speaker.
4
Appeal 2017-000740
Application 13/137,552
Appellant further argues that Abecassis does not teach controlling said
signals with “said remote control units and transceivers located with at least
some of said audio speakers, wherein said different signals are addressed to
corresponding ones of said audio speakers based on which of said plurality
of remote control units requested one said signals through which of said
audio speakers.” App. Br. 6. However, merely reciting the language of the
claims and asserting that the cited prior art reference does not teach or
suggest each claim limitation is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner
error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.”); see also In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.”). Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
Dependent Claim 24
With respect to dependent claim 24, Appellant argues that Abecassis
does not teach “wherein said server is configured for transmitting a listing of
audio files available and digital audio streams from the Internet that said
server is programmed to access to said audio speakers, and said transceiver
transmits said listing to said remote control unit.” App. Br. 5. Appellant
contends, although Abecassis mentions the word stream as in
communication streams, Appellant argues, without further explanation or
sufficient supporting evidence, that “this is not the same as the claimed
5
Appeal 2017-000740
Application 13/137,552
limitation of digital audio streams from the Internet.'1'’ Id. We agree with the
Examiner that Abecassis teaches this limitation because Abecassis describes
a “radio-on-demand provider system” with communications technologies for
establishing a plurality of communications streams to a plurality of
Multimedia Players. Abecassis, 11:31—34; see also 25:36—50; Ans. 25—26.
We fail to see how the claims limit “digital audio streams from the Internet”
in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, the limitation is
not taught or suggested by the communications streams of Abecassis.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error, and we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 24.
Remaining pending claims
With respect to the remaining pending claims, Appellant does not
provide any specific reasoning in the Appeal Brief to support the allegation
that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed elements.
Appellant merely reiterates what the disputed claim limitations recite and
makes general allegations as to the teachings of the cited references, or
reiterates substantially the same patentability arguments as those previously
discussed for the above claims. See App. Br. 2—10. Thus, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s assertions.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error, and we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21, 23, and 24.
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability above, the remaining pending claims fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). “Any bases for asserting error,
6
Appeal 2017-000740
Application 13/137,552
whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived.”
Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). See
also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief... is
waived.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—21, 23, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7