Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 15, 20212020003419 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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. 14/477,480 09/04/2014 Richard Kulavik 27530US02 8068 23446 7590 12/15/2021 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2021 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 RICHARD KULAVIK, MICHAEL JESSUP, and KEVIN ARTHUR ROBERTSON ________________ Appeal 2020-003419 Application 14/477,480 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–22.1 Claims 3 and 13 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003419 Application 14/477,480 2 are canceled. Appeal Br. 9, 11 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2 We REVERSE. SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to monitoring audio in an audio headset for criteria—including the identity of the speaker—that trigger an update message via a social networking service. Abstract. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Krishnamoorthy US 2009/0197681 A1 Aug. 6, 2009 Payzer US 2014/0372892 A1 Dec. 18, 2014 Pinsky US 9,666,187 B1 May 30, 2017 2 Appellant seeks “review of the Final Office Action of November 23, 2018 (‘FOA-1’), the Advisory Action of December 18, 2018 (‘AA’) as well as the Final Office Action of August 12, 2019 (‘FOA-2’).” Appeal Br. 1. The Examiner correctly notes that we do not have jurisdiction to review the Final Office Action mailed November 23, 2018, or the Advisory Action filed August 12, 2019. Ans. 3. We will, however, review all the Examiner’s findings and analysis cited by Appellant—but only to the extent that they accord with findings and analysis set forth in the Examiner’s Final Office Action mailed August 12, 2019 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2020-003419 Application 14/477,480 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–22 as follows: Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 12, 14–19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsky and Payzer. Final Act. 3– 13. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsky, Payzer, and further in view of Krishnamoorthy. Final Act. 13–14. ANALYSIS Claim 1, which is illustrative with respect to claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–22, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 1. A method comprising: in an audio headset that is configurable to process audio for a player participating in an online multiplayer game: [1] setting one or more triggering criteria for the online multiplayer game based on an identity of a speaker, wherein the one or more triggering criteria are associated with a particular social networking service; monitoring input audio and/or output audio handled in the audio headset during the online multiplayer game; detecting when the audio matches the one or more triggering criteria; and when there is a match, transmitting a signal to a multi- purpose device to trigger a post of an update message via the social networking service, wherein the audio headset Appeal 2020-003419 Application 14/477,480 4 comprises an interface operable to communicate with the multipurpose device. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Pinsky’s teaching of adding commands to a voice navigable menu of a head-mountable display (HMD) teaches or suggests recitation [1]. Final Act. 7 (citing Pinsky 18:49– 53). The Examiner finds, in particular, that the added “commands would not be available on a HMD but for [the] particular HMD’s owner explicitly installing his or her desired combination of voice-activated commands.” Id. at 3; Ans. 5 (“[T]he owner-customized HMD 102 is distinguishable and identifiable over an HMD 102 that is mint in the box, or that was customized by someone else.”). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “[w]hile it is true that those ‘commands would not be available on an HMD but for the particular HMD’s owner explicitly installing his or her desired combination of voice- activated commands,’ the HMD’s owner’s ‘identity’ is not addressed in Pinsky.” Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 6 (“[T]he commands that are not available in the hypothetical off-the-shelf HMD may be installed by anyone (e.g., person X or person Y) regardless of who owns the HMD.”). We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. Appellant’s characterization of recitation [1] as requiring some identification of who the speaker is—rather than merely, e.g., what custom commands or triggers are available—is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure of criteria that may include “identity of a talker whose voice is present in the audio.” Spec. ¶ 77. This may include, for example, determining “whether a speaker of an audio being outputted via the headset [is or can be recognized as a] Appeal 2020-003419 Application 14/477,480 5 preselected speaker.” Id. ¶ 89; see also id. ¶ 93 (recognizing the voice of a user). It is not enough that Pinsky’s HMD can be customized. The Examiner does not show that use of a custom command that has been added to a HMD in Pinsky is limited to or triggered by identification of a particular speaker. The Examiner does not even present evidence to support the finding that an HMD customized by one user is distinguishable and identifiable over an HMD customized by another someone else. Ans. 5. In particular, if multiple users make the same customization to different HMDs, then based on the types of customizations disclosed in Pinsky, the identical customizations would not distinguish or otherwise identify the HMDs. See Pinsky 18:43–53 (commands can be added based on features the wearer enables, such as turning ON tasks the wearer would like the HMD to be able to carry out). Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not show that Pinsky teaches or suggests recitation [1]. CONCLUSION The Examiner does not show that Payzer or Krishnamoorthy cures the noted deficiency of Pinsky. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 2, 4–12, 14–22, which contain similar recitations. Appeal 2020-003419 Application 14/477,480 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 12, 14–19, 21, 22 103 Pinsky, Payzer 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 12, 14–19, 21, 22 10, 20 103 Pinsky, Payzer, Krishnamoorthy 10, 20 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–12, 14–22 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation