Sound United, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 22, 2021

2020003522 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 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. 14/726,109 05/29/2015 Bradley M. Starobin 28850US01 1934 23446 7590 11/22/2021 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER KEEHN, RICHARD G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/22/2021 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): mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRADLEY M. STAROBIN, MATTHEW LYONS, STUART W. LUMSDEN, MICHAEL DITULLO, and PAUL O’CONNOR ___________________ Appeal 2020-003522 Application 14/726,109 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed October 18, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed April 6, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed February 6, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Rejection mailed June 6, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed May 29, 2015 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2020-003522 Application 14/726,109 2 Appellant2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 1–24, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION The claims relate to a system and method for providing zone-specific media to a user. See Abstract. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 18 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A system for providing media content, the system comprising: at least one module comprising a processor and a memory, the at least one module operable to, at least: in a database, logically associate respective audio content with each of a plurality of different types of rooms within a premises; determine a location of a user within the premises, said determined location corresponding to a particular type of room of the plurality of different types of rooms; identify audio content based, at least in part, on the particular type of room; and output the identified audio content to at least the determined location, 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Sound United LLC of Vista, CA, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003522 Application 14/726,109 3 wherein the at least one module is operable to identify the audio content by, at least in part, operating to: search the database based, at least in part, on the particular type of room, wherein: if the particular type of room corresponds to a first type of room of the plurality of different types of rooms, then identify first audio content; and if the particular type of room corresponds to a second type of room of the plurality of different types of rooms, then identify second audio content independent of the first audio content. Prior Art Name3 Reference Date Chai US 2015/0121406 A1 Apr. 30, 2015 Corbin US 2016/0088032 A1 Mar. 24, 2016 REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE Claims 1–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Corbin and Chai. Final Act. 5–22. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-003522 Application 14/726,109 4 thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections. We add the following primarily for emphasis. CLAIMS 1–24: OBVIOUSNESS OVER CORBIN AND CHAI Appellant represents the claims as reciting, inter alia: the at least one module operable to, at least ... determine a location of a user within the premises, said determined location corresponding to a particular type of room of the plurality of different types of rooms; identify audio content based, at least in part, on the particular type of room; and output the identified audio content to at least the determined location. Appeal Br. 5 (quoting Independent Claim 1). Appellant argues: “Corbin fails to teach a module that is operable to search, identify and output audio content according a type of room. Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner finds Corbin queries a database to determine one or more social accounts that are registered to respective media playback systems to determine which type of audio and/or video media is to be played according to the room type. Ans. 4 (citing Corbin ¶¶ 77–86). The Examiner finds Corbin provides playback queues with URLs attached that are Appeal 2020-003522 Application 14/726,109 5 associated with the room/zone type. Ans. 5. (citing Corbin ¶ 82). The Examiner finds the playback queues function as a database to determine what media will be played in which rooms. Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner finds the playback queues function as a database to determine what media will be played in which rooms, but that the Examiner fails to show that Corbin’s playback queue can do anything more than list, in order, what a user has selected to be played. Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues a “database” is “a usually large collection of data organized especially for rapid search and retrieval” and “determine” means “to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or Possibilities.” Id. (quoting Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary5). But, Appellant argues, nothing in the cited portions of Corbin teaches or suggests the playback queue performs any search and retrieval or decision function. Id. Corbin discloses a “user interface 408 of the control device 400” which “may be configured to facilitate user access and control of the media playback system.” Corbin ¶ 77 (cited by the Examiner). Corbin further discloses the “playback control region 510 may include selectable (e.g., by way of touch or by using a cursor) icons to cause playback devices in a selected playback zone or zone group to play or pause . . . .” Corbin ¶ 78 (cited by the Examiner). The claims recite, inter alia: “at least one module operable to, at least . . . identify audio content based, at least in part, on the particular type of room; and output the identified audio content to at least the determined location.” See Claim 1 and the commensurate recitations of 5 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com. Appeal 2020-003522 Application 14/726,109 6 independent Claims 6, 11, and 18. Thus, we understand the rejection to be based on a finding that a person selecting a playlist to be played in a particular room or zone teaches or suggests the recited module that identifies and outputs audio content. A module of a claimed system cannot read on a human user. Patent claims do not cover structures in which a human being substitutes for a part of the claimed structure. See Brown v. Davis, 116 U.S. 237, 249 (1886). It has been established under long-standing precedent that it is not permissible to read a means plus function limitation of a claim on a human being or a part of a human being. See generally In re Bernhardt, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969). Because we are not persuaded the prior art teaches the claimed module, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–24. DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–24 103 Chai, Corbin 1–24 REVERSED