Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2016

11903639 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

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.
11/903,639 09/24/2007 Ju Yun Kim 5004-1-054 9832
33942 7590 07/25/2016
Cha & Reiter, LLC
17 Arcadian Avenue
Suite 208
Paramus, NJ 07652
EXAMINER
SAUNDERS JR, JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2016 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 JU YUN KIM and SEUNG JAI LEE
____________________

Appeal 2015-004043
Application 11/903,639
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2015-004043
Application 11/903,639

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final
rejection of claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to a multi-type
audio processing system and method capable of selectively processing mono
and stereo audio signals. Spec. 1.
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A multi-type audio processing method for an audio system
including an audio source device and a mono headset connected
to the audio source device, comprising:
transmitting by the mono headset, capability information
for processing a stereo audio stream of the mono headset to the
audio source device;
transmitting, by the audio source device, an audio stream
to the mono headset on the basis of the capability information
received from the mono headset; and
providing by the mono headset, when the audio stream
received from the audio source device comprises a stereo audio
stream, a stereo function in which the mono headset outputs the
audio stream received from the audio source device in a stereo
output mode,
wherein the audio source device establishes one of an
asynchronous connectionless (ACL) channel or a Synchronous
Connection Oriented (SCO) channel with the mono headset
based on whether the mono headset supports a stereo audio
stream processing.
Appeal 2015-004043
Application 11/903,639

3
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Mito et al. US 2002/0172185 Al Nov. 21, 2002
Chiloyan US 2007/0147629 Al June 28, 2007
Gilmore et al. US 2008/0146292 Al June 19, 2008

Claims 1–3, 9–13, and 16–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Chiloyan and Gilmore.
Claims 4–8, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Chiloyan, Gilmore and Mita.
II. ISSUE
The principle issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Chiloyan and Gilmore teaches or would have suggested
“wherein the audio source device establishes one of an asynchronous
connectionless (ACL) channel or a Synchronous Connection Oriented
(SCO) channel with the mono headset based on whether the mono headset
supports a stereo audio stream processing.” (claim 1).
III. ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so
that we deem any such arguments as waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2015-004043
Application 11/903,639

4
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and
rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1–3, 9–13, and 16–25
Appellants paraphrase what Chiloyan discloses in ¶¶ 6, 7, 38, and 42
(App. Br. 8–9), what Gilmore discloses in Figs. 1, 3, and 5 (App. Br. 9), and
then merely contend:
In the present claims, a communication channel is established in
which the audio source device establishes one of an
asynchronous connectionless (ACLJ channel or a
Synchronous Connection Oriented (SCOJ channel with the
mono headset based on whether the mono headset supports a
stereo audio stream processing is not disclosed or rendered
obvious by the combination of references.
Id.
Appellants provide no evidence on this record to support such
assertion that the combination of cited references do not teach or suggest the
contested claim limitations (id.). Our reviewing court guides that mere
conclusory statements which are unsupported by factual evidence are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex
parte Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843, at *3–4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative).
Appeal 2015-004043
Application 11/903,639

5
Here, the Examiner makes a detailed finding that the combination of
Chiloyan and Gilmore teaches and suggests the contested claim limitations
(Final Act. 3–5), and provides a detailed response in the Examiner’s Answer
to further support the findings (Ans. 2–4). Based on the record before us,
Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us
of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of the contested limitations
on the cited prior art.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance
on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art combination
to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in
the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–3, 9–13,
and 16–25.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 4–8, 14, and 15
Appellants contend:
Similar to the rejections of independent claims above, with
regard to the Final Rejection in view of Chiloyan, Gilmore and
Mito lacks meeting some articulated reasons with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
App. Br. 10.
Again, Appellants merely repeat the claim language, provide
conclusory statements and attorney argument with no substantive evidence
or reasoning to persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s reliance on
the cited references. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’ reasoning of
the Chiloyan reference’s suggested use of Bluetooth together with the
reasoning that an artisan having ordinary skill in the art would have
combined such known elements using known methods, where the
Appeal 2015-004043
Application 11/903,639

6
combination yielded predictable results (Ans. 5–6, Final Act. 14), provides
the required rational underpinning in support of the Examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness. We note Appellants have provided no evidence that the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of claims 4–8, 14, and 15 would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,”
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s findings, and find no error with
the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness regarding claims 4–8, 14, and 15.
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2–4) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a reply brief that were not raised in
the appeal brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause, which Appellants
have not shown. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
IV. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1–25.
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