Ex Parte LaiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 201411677126 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte FREDERICK CHEE-KIONG LAI _____________ Appeal 2012-001812 Application 11/677,126 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 5, and 12 through 17. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for using external audio devices with a single mobile telephone, where the external audio devices have audio input functionality and audio output functionality. See Abstract of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method in a mobile telephone for using external audio devices, the method comprising: communicating audio data of a first telephone call involving the mobile telephone with one or more first external audio devices; and Appeal 2012-01812 Application 11/677,126 2 communicating audio data of a second telephone call involving the mobile telephone with one or more second external audio devices, wherein the first telephone call and the second telephone call are concurrent for at least a period of time, and wherein each of the external audio devices has audio input functionality and audio output functionality. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frerking (US 2005/0282592 A1, pub. Dec. 22, 2005) and Shi (US 2004/0203674 A1, pub. Oct. 14, 2004). Answer 5–7.1 The Examiner has rejected claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frerking, Shi and Todd (US 2008/0102843 A1, pub. May 1, 2008). Answer 7. ISSUES Appellant’s arguments on pages 13 through 20 of the Appeal Brief present several arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant argues the Examiner misunderstood the teachings of Frerking, the Examiner did not identify where the limitations of claim 1 are taught in the reference, and that neither Frerking nor Shi teaches an application arranged to manage concurrent telephone calls. Thus, Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issues: a) Did the Examiner err in finding Frerking teaches a mobile telephone comprising a second wireless communication interface 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 7, 2011, Reply Brief, filed October 30, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on September 1, 2011. Appeal 2012-01812 Application 11/677,126 3 through which the telephone is able to communicate with one or more external audio devices? b) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Frerking and Shi teaches an application which is arranged to manage concurrent telephone calls involving the mobile telephone? c) Did the Examiner err by not identifying where the limitations of claim 1 are taught in the prior art? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 12 and 15. Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue assert the Examiner has misunderstood Frerking’s teachings as Frerking does not teach a mobile phone comprising a second wireless communication interface; rather, what the Examiner is referring to as the second wireless interface is an adapter external to the phone and is not part of the phone. Appeal Br. 13–15. Thus, Appellant asserts the Examiner has not shown the combination of the references teaches the second wireless communication interface as recited in independent claims 12 and 15. Appeal Br. 15–16, 18. In response, the Examiner finds Frerking teaches the adapter is used as an intermediary between the telephone and the wireless device and thus meets the claimed wireless interface. Answer 8. Further, the Examiner considers the adapter to be part of the telephone. Answer 9. We concur with the Examiner’s findings. Each of independent claims 12 and 15 recites a “telephone comprising … a second wireless communication interface”; Appeal 2012-01812 Application 11/677,126 4 however, the claims do not recite a limitation precluding the interface from being removable from the phone (such as Frerking’s adapter). As such, we consider the Examiner’s interpretation of the adapter being connected to the phone to meet the claimed second wireless interface. Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue assert that Shi relates to the display of information for multiple calls and does not teach a memory to store an application to control and manage concurrent telephone calls. Appeal Br. 17–18. Appellant presents similar arguments directed to claim 15 on page 19 of the Appeal Brief and claim 1 on page 20 of the Appeal Brief. The Examiner, citing paragraphs 6, 32, 45, 064, 68, and Figures 3A through 3F, finds that Shi teaches a memory to store an application to control and manage concurrent phone calls. Answer 6. In combination with Frerking the Examiner finds this teaches allowing multiple simultaneous calls originating from both Bluetooth headsets. Answer 6. We concur. Each of independent claims 12 and 15 recites a memory to store an application to manage concurrent telephone calls involving the mobile telephone. Independent claim 1 recites a limitation directed to a first and second call being concurrent for a period of time. Shi teaches in paragraph 6: many communications systems allow a user to maintain multiple calls concurrently with a single wireless communication device (e.g. a cellular phone). The multi-call capability is desirable for many applications. For example … a three-way or conference call whereby two or possibly more calls to different phone numbers are concurrently maintained. Thus, Shi clearly teaches managing concurrent calls. Independent claims 12 and 15 further recite that audio data of a first telephone call is communicated Appeal 2012-01812 Application 11/677,126 5 with one or more first external audio devices, and audio data of the second call is communicated to one or more second external audio devices. Independent claim 1 includes similar limitations directed to communicating audio of a first call to a first external device and audio of a second call to a second device. It is important to note that the claims do not preclude the first audio data from also being communicated to the second external audio device and the second audio data being communicated to the first external audio device (i.e., the scope of the claims encompasses both audio devices receiving audio data from both calls). In combination with Frerking’s teaching of wirelessly communicating with two external audio devices (see Fig. 7, Abstract and para. 11), we find that one skilled in the art would consider both audio devices to receive the audio from all of the concurrent calls of the multi-call capability. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the combined teachings of Frerking and Shi teach an application that is arranged to manage concurrent telephone calls involving the mobile telephone. Appellant’s arguments directed to the third issue merely assert the Examiner’s discussion of the rejection of claim 1 “refers only to claim limitations of claims 12 and 15 and is silent as to the claim limitations of claim 1” and as such the rejection is in error. Appeal Br. 15. We are not persuaded of error, as the argument is merely a general allegation and does not identify a limitation of claim 1 not taught by the prior art. We recognize claim 1 is directed to a method, and the Examiner, in the rejection, identified the elements which perform the functions in lieu of identifying the method steps (e.g., identifying the second communication interface which communicates with external audio devices, in lieu of a step of communicating with the separate audio devices). Answer 5–6. However, Appeal 2012-01812 Application 11/677,126 6 we consider the Examiner to have shown how the limitations of claim 1 are taught by the combined teachings. Appellant’s arguments directed to the three issues have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frerking and Shi. Appellant has not presented separate arguments directed to the rejection of claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frerking, Shi and Todd. Accordingly, we similarly sustain this rejection. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 5, and 12 through 17 is affirmed. AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation