Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2021

2020003419 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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.
14/477,480 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