Ex Parte Levas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 19, 2013

10797847 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/797,847 03/10/2004 INV001Anthony Levas 728-241 6373 66668 7590 03/20/2013 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. - IBM 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER JACKSON, JAKIEDA R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2013 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 ANTHONY LEVAS, CHALAPATHY NETI, JOSEPH R. BRANC and TERENCE DOUGLAS WEST ____________ Appeal 2010-008067 Application 10/797,847 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008067 Application 10/797,847 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1, 5-9, 13-18 and 22-26.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The Appellants’ disclosed invention is related to a system and method for presenting and browsing information. Spec. 1; Abs. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitations in italics): 1. A method for presenting and browsing information, comprising the steps of: classifying the information into a plurality of classes and sub-classes, each class having at least one sub-class; directional tagging said classified information with directional tags for spatial presentation; consulting the directional tags to audibly present each class from a different position in space relative to a user and based on the directional tags; and interactively controlling the presentation of the sub- classes, comprising the steps of: receiving an input command from the user, said input command containing information identifying a position in space from which a class was presented; and presenting sub-class information of the class identified by said input command. Rejection Claims 1, 5-9, 13-18 and 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kovesdi (U.S. 2003/0155413 A1; Aug. 1 Claims 2-4, 10-12 and 19-21 have been cancelled. Appeal 2010-008067 Application 10/797,847 3 21, 2003) and Willins (U.S. 2005/0108646 A1; May 19, 2005, filed Dec. 23, 2004). ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kovesdi and Willins teaches or suggests “consulting the directional tags to audibly present each class from a different position in space relative to a user and based on the directional tags,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 18? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kovesdi and Willins teaches or suggests “receiving an input command from the user . . . containing information identifying a position in space from which a class was presented,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 18? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action (“FOA”) and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner’s Answer. We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions and highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. The Appellants first argue that neither Kovesdi nor Willins outputs audio from different positions in space relative to a user. App. Br. 11. The Appellants assert that the plain meaning of the claims “deal with how (i.e. from which direction) the audio is output;” “the directional tags control the direction from where the audio is output relative to the user, which can be from in front of, behind, to the left or right, from above or below, etc., the user.” App. Br. 9; see also App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 3 (“The directional Appeal 2010-008067 Application 10/797,847 4 tagging of the claims of the present application define from where the sound is to emanate.”). The Appellants argue that Kovesdi and Willins only produce audio from a mobile device or from a headset (App Br. 12) or produce sound from a position in space based on the location of a user (Reply Br. 3). We are unpersuaded by the Appellants’ arguments. We do not narrowly construe claim 1 to require the audible information to be propagated or output from different positions in space relative to a user, as suggested by the Appellants. Rather, we broadly construe the recitation “consulting the directional tags to audibly present each class from a different position in space relative to a user and based on the directional tags” to include audibly presenting each class such that the user perceives the audio information from a different position in space relative to a user. Our broad interpretation is consistent with the Appellants’ Specification which discloses “through use of a known technique of combining outputs from more than one speaker, i.e. stereo, sound can be perceived as emanating from a place in space not directly associated with a speaker.” Spec. 9, ll. 2-4. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Willins teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1 (Ans. 5, citing Willins ¶¶ 0030-0036). In particular, we note that Willins describes a system that convolves the audio with an impulse response function and plays the result to the user via a headset, creating a sound perceived as being located at the audio emanation point (AEP). Willins ¶ 0036. For this reason, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Kovesdi and Willins teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1. Appeal 2010-008067 Application 10/797,847 5 In any event, even if the Appellants’ arguments asserting a narrow plain meaning were persuasive, which we do not find, the Appellants do not meaningfully explain why Willins’ headset having two speakers (see Willins Figs. 1-2) does not meet the disputed limitations. We note that, similar to Willins’ binaural stereo audio headset, the Appellants’ Specification discloses “the minimum number of speakers for the system to operate is two.” Spec. p. 8, l. 29 – p. 9, l. 1. For this additional reason, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Kovesdi and Willins teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1. Second, the Appellants argue that Kovesdi does not teach or suggest an “input command containing information identifying a position in space from which a class was presented,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13-14. The Appellants provide characterizations of Kovesdi’s description and conclude that Kovesdi and Willins produce input commands that are unrelated to a position in space from which a class was presented. App. Br. 13-14 (citing Kovesdi ¶¶ 0046, 0064, 0089). We are unpersuaded by the Appellants’ arguments. While the Appellants summarily characterize the cited paragraphs of the Kovesdi reference, the Appellants do not meaningfully explain the error in the Examiner’s finding that Kovesdi’s describes the disputed limitation of claim 1. Ans. 5 (citing Kovesdi ¶¶ 0046, 0064, 0089). For example, the Appellants do not explain why Kovesdi’s description at paragraph 64 of a text input mechanism and a location determination capability in which the location of the user could be used to narrow down the object identifier search space does not meet the disputed limitation of claim 1. For this reason, we are Appeal 2010-008067 Application 10/797,847 6 unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Kovesdi and Willins teach or suggest the disputed limitation. In addition, the disputed limitation is directed to non-functional descriptive material which merely describes the information contained in the input command (i.e., the information identifying a position in space from which a class was presented). The “information identifying a position in space from which a class was presented” is not necessarily functionally related to, nor utilized in, the recited method as claimed. In other words, the method is not affected, altered, or changed based on the information identifying a position in space; rather, the method is carried out the same way regardless of whether the information identifies a position in space.2 As non-functional descriptive material, the disputed limitation does not differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art. Thus, for this additional reason we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that Kovesdi and Willins teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1. For all the reasons set forth, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 5-8 falling together therewith. The Appellants present substantially identical arguments addressing independent claims 9 and 18, as those arguments addressing claim 1. Compare App Br. 14-22 with 2 Assuming arguendo that “the information identifying a position in space from which a class was presented” is functionally related to “presenting sub- class information of the class identified by said input command,” we note that the limitation “receiving an input command from the user, said input command containing . . .” is open-ended. Thus, the input command may contain information identifying a class in addition to the input command containing the recited “information identifying a position in space from which a class was presented.” Appeal 2010-008067 Application 10/797,847 7 App. Br. 10-14. For the same reasons as claims 1 and 5-8, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 18 and dependent claims 13-17 and 22- 26 falling together therewith. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 5-9, 13-18 and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). TIME PERIOD 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)(iv). AFFIRMED tj