Ex Parte Kim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 201611903639 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation