Ex Parte HOUG

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2004

09306954 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte TODD C. HOUG
__________
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FRANKFORT, MCQUADE, and NASE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Todd C. Houg originally took this appeal from the final
rejection (Paper No. 14) of claims 1 through 26, all of the
claims pending in the application. Upon consideration of the
appellant’s main brief (Paper No. 18), the examiner issued an
Office action (Paper No. 19) reopening prosecution and entering
superseding rejections of the claims. Pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.193(b)(2)(ii), the appellant then filed a request that the
appeal be reinstated (Paper No. 20) and a supplemental brief
(Paper No. 21). Implicitly granting the request, the examiner
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
2
entered an answer (Paper No. 22), noted a reply brief (Paper No.
23) filed by the appellant and forwarded the application to this
Board for review of the current rejections of claims 1 through
26.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to “audio systems with range finding
devices” (specification, page 1). Representative claims 1 and 14
read as follows:
1. An audio system comprising:
a plurality of speakers;
a first range device coupled to a first speaker and a second
range device coupled to a second speaker, the first range device
adapted to generate a first indication representing a first
distance to a listener, the second range device adapted to
generate a second indication representing a second distance to
the listener; and
a positioning routine executed by a processor unit and
operatively coupled to the plurality of speakers and to the first
and second range devices, the positioning routine adapted to
modify a timing of an audio signal transmitted to the plurality
of speakers based on the first and second indications.
14. A method to adjust an audio output signal, comprising:
obtaining a first distance from a first range device to a
listener;
obtaining a second distance from a second range device to
the listener; and
modifying an intensity and at least another component of the
audio output signal based on the first and second distances.
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
1 The version of this reference of record includes an
English language translation.
3
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
rejections on appeal are:
Stevenson 5,255,326 Oct. 19, 1993
Friedman 5,499,294 Mar. 12, 1996
Tatemi et al., 10-126900 May 15, 1998
Japanese Patent Document (Tatemi)1
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 14, 15 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Stevenson.
Claims 1 through 7, 10 through 13, 16 through 23, 25 and 26
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Stevenson in view of Tatemi.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Tatemi and Friedman.
Attention is directed to the main, supplemental and reply
briefs and to the answer for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner regarding the merits of these
rejections.
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
4
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 14, 15 and 24 as
being anticipated by Stevenson
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency,
each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no
difference between the claimed invention and the reference
disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field
of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech
Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Stevenson discloses an interactive audio system “which is
capable of tracking a principal listener and balancing the
reproduced sound in accordance with the position of the principal
listener” (column 2, lines 24 through 27). The system comprises
a surround sound signal processor 12, stereophonic speaker units
in the form of transceivers 14 and 16, a microprocessor 30 and
various audio sources including a television set 32, a tape deck
33, a compact disc player 35 and a radio 36. Stevenson describes
the listener tracking aspect of the system as follows:
[t]he system illustrated in FIG. 1 additionally
employs a pair of infrared sensors 18 and 22. These
sensors are coupled, respectively, through analog-to-
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
5
digital convertors 19 and 23 to digital transmitters 20
and 24 for supplying digitized signals indicative of
the triangulation or location of the principal listener
10, back through the transceivers 14 and 16,
respectively, to the surround sound signal processor
12. This information is supplied to the microprocessor
30 which then supplies signals back to the surround
sound signal processor 12 for automatically adjusting
the “balance” of the audio signals to be reproduced by
the loudspeakers of the transceivers 14 and 16. The
utilization of the infrared sensors 18 and 22 permits
the system continually to triangulate on the principal
listener 10 and, essentially, report the position of
the principal listener 10 in the room to effect
automatic adjustment of the balance of the speakers to
the desired level initially set by the principal
listener 10 for some initial starting position when the
system first is turned on [column 3, lines 28 through
47].
As indicated above, independent claim 14 recites a method to
adjust an audio output signal comprising, inter alia, the step of
modifying “the intensity and at least another component of the
audio output signal” based on first and second distances from
first and second range devices to a listener. In the face of
Stevenson’s apparent disclosure of modifying only the balance
(i.e., the intensity) of the audio output signal based on first
and second distances from first and second range devices to a
listener, the examiner submits that “the claim does not
patentably differentiate over Stevenson’s adjusting of the
balance of the speakers from a first setting to a second setting,
since the second setting would read upon the claimed ‘another
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
6
component’ of the audio signal” (answer, page 4). The examiner
further explains that
[t]he claim to “another component” of the audio signal
does not define over a first intensity and a second
intensity (balancing and then, in response to movement
of the listener, rebalancing) of the audio signal. The
breath of “another component” of the audio signal is
such as to read upon two different levels of balancing
or intensity [answer, page 7].
The examiner’s position here is unreasonable. Stevenson
discloses the modification of only one component of an audio
signal, i.e., the balance or intensity, based on first and second
distances from first and second range devices to a listener. A
person of ordinary skill in the art clearly would not view a
further modification of this same component to be a modification
of another component of the audio signal. Hence, the examiner’s
determination that Stevenson discloses each and every element of
the invention set forth in claim 14 is unsound.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 14, and dependent claims
15 and 24, as being anticipated by Stevenson.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 7, 10
through 13, 16 through 23, 25 and 26 as being unpatentable over
Stevenson in view of Tatemi
Independent claim 1 recites an audio system comprising,
inter alia, a positioning routine adapted to modify a “timing” of
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
7
an audio signal. Independent claims 11 and 17 contain similar
recitations. The examiner (see page 5 in the answer) concedes
that Stevenson does not respond to these claim limitations. To
overcome this deficiency, the examiner turns to Tatemi.
It is not disputed that Tatemi discloses an audio system for
a theater wherein the distances between one or more movable sound
sources on a stage and a plurality of stationary speakers is
sensed and utilized to adjust the timing of the speaker outputs
so as to enable spectators to readily recognize the relative
positions of the sound sources.
In proposing to combine Stevenson and Tatemi to reject
independent claims 1, 11 and 17, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious in view of Tatemi “to have modified
Stevenson to include modifying the timing of the audio signals
from the speakers in addition to the volume or intensity and
balance so as to optimize the ambiance of the audio sound system
and the directional audio quality” (answer, pages 5 and 6). The
examiner adds that
with respect to Tatemi et al, it is irrelevant whether
the source or the listener is the one moving. . . .
[T]here is no difference, conceptually, in the timing
of signals based upon a movement of a source or a
movement of a listener. What is important is the fact
that the timing of audio receiving apparatuses or
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
8
speakers may be adjusted based upon a changing distance
or range between the source or listener to a speaker(s)
so as to provide greater audio ambiance [answer, page
7].
The examiner’s assertion that there is no difference
conceptually between the timing of audio signals based on
movement of a sound source and the timing of audio signals based
on movement of a listener finds no support in the fair teachings
of Stevenson and Tatemi. In addition to lacking factual support,
this attempted distillation of the claimed invention and the
prior art to a common concept represents a superficial mode of
analysis which improperly disregards both express claim
limitations and specific prior art teachings. In short, the
disparate disclosures of Stevenson and Tatemi would not have
provided the artisan with any suggestion to combine them in the
manner proposed by the examiner so as to arrive at the subject
matter recited in claims 1, 11 and 17.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 11 and 17, and
dependent claims 2 through 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18 through 23, 25
and 26, as being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Tatemi.
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
9
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8 and 9 as being
unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Tatemi and Friedman
As Friedman’s disclosure of a digital camera having a range
finder which may be acoustic, infrared, laser or optical in
nature does not cure the above noted flaws in the Stevenson and
Tatemi combination relative to the subject matter recited in
parent claim 1, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 8 and 9 as being
unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Tatemi and Friedman.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 26
is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
10
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/kis
Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
11
COE F. MILES
TROP, PRUNER, HU & MILES, P.C.
8554 KATY FREEWAY, SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TX 77024