Ex Parte Reiss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2018

13926015 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/926,015 06/25/2013
26290 7590 04/17/2018
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P.
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jordan Reiss
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
LOGI/0077USC01 9173
EXAMINER
MYHR, JUSTIN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2018 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):
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
pair_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
jcardenas@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORDAN REISS, LARS GILSTROM,
ROBERT JETTER, ADAM BARRY, and
BRETT LOVELADY
Appeal2016-004015
Application 13/926,015
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JILL D. HILL, and PAUL J.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jordan Reiss, et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2016-004015
Application 13/926,015
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1 and 8 are pending. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below with a disputed limitation italicized, illustrates the
claimed invention.
1. A method of providing a game audio stream and
network chat audio stream to a headset of a user of a game
console, the method comprising:
receiving, by a base station in communication with a
game console, the network chat audio stream and a separate
game audio stream from the game console;
transmitting, by the base station, the network chat audio
stream and the separate game audio stream to a portable audio
mixing module that is wirelessly connected to the base station;
wirelessly receiving, by the portable audio mixing
module in communication with the base station, the network
chat audio stream and the separate game audio stream;
mixing, by the portable audio mixing module, the
network chat audio stream and the separate game audio stream
to produce a single blended audio output stream; and
transmitting, by the portable audio mixing module, the
single blended audio output stream to a headset in
communication with the portable audio mixing module;
wherein the portable audio mixing module is adapted to
allow a user to control balance of the single blended audio
output stream, wherein the balance of the single blended audio
output stream may be adjusted to allow the user to hear only
network chat, only game audio, and any combination thereof up
to and including volume levels of 0% to 100% for each of
network chat and game audio.
2
Appeal2016-004015
Application 13/926,015
REJECTION 1
I. Claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Turtle Beach X2 Wireless Headset
Review, Gerry Block, dated May 3, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as
X2)(http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/05/04/turtlebeach-x2-wireless-
headset-review) and Alden (US 2004/0198436 Al, pub. Oct. 7, 2004). Final
Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that X2 discloses the limitations of independent
claims 1 and 8, except for wirelessly transmitting a network chat audio
stream and a game audio stream from a base station to a portable audio
mixing module that receives and mixes the audio streams into a single
blended stream, and transmits the single blended stream to a headset. Final
Act. 4. The Examiner also finds that X2 does not disclose a portable audio
mixing module adapted to allow a user to control a balance of (or adjust) the
blended audio output stream so that the user can hear only network chat,
only game audio, or any combination thereof. Id. The Examiner finds,
however, that Alden is analogous art and "is within the field of audio
devices including specifically the field of audio devices which mix two
separate audio sources together into one mixed stream" (Ans. 3), and
discloses "a system for blending two separate audio streams using a portable
mixing module ... in wireless communication with a base station that
transmitting the blended audio stream to a headset," wherein the portable
audio mixing module is adapted to allow a user to control balance of the
1 The Examiner withdrew the double patenting rejection. Ans. 2. Also, the
Real Party in Interest is AG Acquisition Corp. App. Br. 2.
3
Appeal2016-004015
Application 13/926,015
blended audio output stream to hear only a first audio, a second audio, or
any combination thereof. Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to combine the teachings of X2 and Alden
because, "as shown by Alden it would have been obvious to separate a
system into different component parts (see Fig. 1, system fully combined,
and Fig. 8., separate pieces) thereby dividing the functions of the system
which allows for particular parts to be made smaller and easier to replace"
and a user would find it desirable to mute or lower the volume of one or both
one of the audio streams. Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that Alden does not disclose a game audio stream, a
network chat audio stream, a game console, or a base station, and X2 does
not disclose a portable audio mixing module. Appeal Br. 8. These
arguments are not persuasive, because they address the references
individually, rather than addressing the combination of references proposed
by the Examiner. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413 (CCP A 1981 ); see also In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants also argue that Alden does not disclose a ''portable audio
mixing module having the operations or functionality required of the claim
elements," because Alden's single mixing device 66 (1) is not wirelessly
connected to a base station, (2) does not receive a network chat audio stream
and a game audio stream, and (3) does not mix the network chat audio
stream and the separate game audio stream to produce a single blended
audio output stream. Appeal Br. 9-10 (bolding omitted).
4
Appeal2016-004015
Application 13/926,015
Appellants' arguments regarding Alden's mixing device not being
connected to a base station and not receiving network chat and game audio
are not persuasive because they again address the references individually,
rather than addressing the combination of X2 and Alden proposed by the
Examiner.
Regarding the limitation of allowing a user to control balance of
(adjust) the single blended audio output stream to allow the user to hear only
network chat, only game audio, and any combination thereof up to and
including volume levels of 0% to 100%, Appellants argue that Alden's
mixing device 66 does not have volume control functionality because
"Alden's disclosed components for controlling volume, i.e., mute/disconnect
switch 58 and volume control 72, are located in the path of audio signal 13
prior to mixing device 66" and the "mute/disconnect switch 58 and volume
control 72 operate on a single audio signal, not a blended audio signal." Id.
at 11 (bolding omitted). Appellants contend that a mixing device that does
not have a volume adjustment cannot "adjust volume across the entire range
from 0 to 100%." Id. According to Appellants, even if Alden's
mute/disconnect switch 58 and volume control 72 are part of the portable
audio mixing device, "neither of these components operates on the blended
signal." Id.
The Examiner responds that Alden's portable integrator receives and
provides signals from and an audio delivery device and a two-way
communication device, "enabling a user to listen to music or other audio
material and receive and place phone calls on a mobile phone
simultaneously ... by switching between the audio and communication
devices, mixing signals received therefrom, and optionally enabling a user to
5
Appeal2016-004015
Application 13/926,015
reduce the volume or mute the signals." Ans. 5. Further, according to the
Examiner, Alden's audio signal 13 from audio device 16 is combined with
audio signal 15 from audio device 18 into a blended stream that is heard
from audio device 30, 32. Ans. 5---6 (citing Alden i-fi-126, 36 ("the audio
signal 13 from the audio device 16 may be muted or disconnected by a user
with a switch 58 while the user receives or places a call"), 38 ("When a call
is received or placed on the communication device 18, a user may adjust the
volume ... such that music or audio material is still heard in the background
while receiving or placing a call. Once a call is finished, a user may readjust
the volume to a desired level. Thus, a user may simultaneously hear and
monitor both devices through a single acoustic device 30, 32, and may adjust
the volume of at least one of the devices 16, 18 when desired.")). Claims 1
and 8 recite "network chat, only game audio, and any combination thereof,"
and the Examiner therefore contends that "Alden's controlling of the balance
of at least one of the audio signals that are mixed together teaches the claim
recitation." The Examiner contends that Alden's teaching of either muting
an audio signal or changing its volume such that a user would no longer be
able to hear it is well understood in the audio art. Id ..
The Examiner has the better argument. Appellants Specification fails
to mention "any combination of' the audio signal volumes, and Appellants
have not provided any definition therefore that requires volume adjustment
across the entire range from 0 to 100%, or excludes the audio signal volume
control of Alden, which provides either of the chat or game audio signal
separately, or a combination of the game and chat audio signals.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's reasoning, which includes
"dividing the functions of the system" to allow "particular parts to be made
6
Appeal2016-004015
Application 13/926,015
smaller and easier to replace," fails to explain "which parts of which prior
art system are being divided and why," and why such division "would
motivate one skilled in the art to combine [X2 and Alden] to arrive at the
claimed invention." Appeal Br. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner makes
clear that dividing the system functions includes replacing X2' s headphone-
based signal mixing with Alden's separate portable mixing device so that, if
the mixing device was not working, the portable component could be
replaced rather than, for example, the entire headset. Final Act. 5; Ans. 8.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of the claims as unpatentable over X2 and
Alden.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7