Ex Parte Andrews et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

13358403 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017)

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.
13/358,403 01/25/2012 Carlton Andrews DC-19572 7880
33438 7590 03/14/2017
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
EXAMINER
TAYLOR, NATHAN SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2017 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):
tmunoz @ tcchlaw. com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARLTON ANDREWS, DOUGLAS PEELER, and
STEVEN LALLA
Appeal 2014-003419
Application 13/358,403
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-003419
Application 13/358,403
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a smartphone speakerphone mode with
beam steering isolation. Spec. Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An information handling system comprising:
a housing;
plural microphones disposed at the housing and operable
to capture audible sounds as audio information;
plural speakers disposed at the housing and operable to
present audio information as audible sounds;
a direction finder interfaced with the plural microphones
and operable to analyze audio information from the plural
microphones to determine the direction of a sound source; and
a beam former interfaced with the direction finder and the
plural speakers, the beam former operable to form a beam of the
audible sounds by adjusting the output by the plural speakers, the
beam directed towards the sound source.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cheung US 2004/0209654 A1 Oct. 21,2004
Sethuraman US 2010/0075712 A1 Mar. 25, 2010
Turbahn US 2010/0110273 A1 May 6, 2010
Nemer US 2010/0217590 A1 Aug. 26, 2010
Lee US 2011/0232989 A1 Sept. 29, 2011
2
Appeal 2014-003419
Application 13/358,403
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—4, 8—12, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheung and Nemer. Final Act. 4—17.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cheung, Nemer, and Turbahn. Final Act. 18—21.
Claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheung, Nemer, and Lee. Final Act. 21—24.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheung, Nemer, Lee, and Sethuraman. Final Act. 24—25.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheung, Nemer, and Sethuraman. Final Act. 25—26.
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. Appellants contend the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17
is improper because “[t]he Examiner has failed to connect the
determination of the direction of the sound source [as taught by
Nemer] with the beamforming of output from speakers [as taught
by Cheung] in the direction of the sound source.” App. Br. 3—5.
2. Appellants contend the rejection of claim 3 is improper because
“Nemer’s feature extractor uses pattern matching to associate a
direction of arrival of sounds, not a voice as recited by Claim 3.”
App. Br. 4.
3. Appellants contend the rejection of claim 6 is improper because
Turbahn fails to suggest an arm extending from a housing as
recited by the claim.
3
Appeal 2014-003419
Application 13/358,403
4. Appellants contend the rejection of claim 12 is improper because
“Nemer’s pattern recognition is used to aid [direction of arrival
(DOA) estimation], not identify a participant.” Appl. Br. 4—5.
5. Appellants contend the rejection of claim 15 is improper because
“Turbahn fails to disclose extending a microphone a predetermined
distance from a wireless handset.” App. Br. 5.
6. Appellants contend the rejection of claim 16 is improper because
“Turbahn fails to disclose extending a speaker from a wireless
handset.” App. Br. 5.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—26)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Advisory Action of July
8, 2013, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(Ans. 23—30) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following for emphasis.
Contention 1 —Independent Claims 1, 9, and 17
Appellants contend “[njothing in Cheung or Nemer teaches, discloses,
or suggests determining the direction of audible sounds with microphones
and then providing audible sounds in the direction determined by the
microphones with a beam formed with plural speakers.” App. Br. 3.
Appellants argue “Cheung discloses directing audible sounds output by a
speaker towards a listener” and Nemer discloses “beamforming to determine
4
Appeal 2014-003419
Application 13/358,403
the direction from which audible sounds originate relative to a microphone”
but neither teaches using the direction locating using microphones to direct
sound in the direction of the sound source. App. Br. 3^4. The Examiner
responds by finding the disputed limitations taught or suggested by the
combination of “beamforming sound in a particular direction [as taught by
Cheung] and a technique for determining direction using a microphone [as
taught by Nemer]” the combination “entail[ing] nothing more than
combining techniques and elements known to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to yield predictable results.” Ans. 27.
We find Appellants’ contention 1 unpersuasive. Cheung discloses a
directional speaker, which may include a phased-array of directional speaker
components forming a beam of sound. Cheung || 71, 75. “[A] user can
[electronically] adjust the output direction of the audio signals from the
directional speaker 166” (Cheung 140) including “towards the user and thus
provides privacy.” Cheung 135; see also Advisory Action of July 8, 2013.
Nemer teaches beam forming of sound using an array of microphones to
locate a user or “speaker” based on the direction of arrival (DOA) of speech
sound waves emanating from a desired speaker. Nemer 19. Thus, it would
have been obvious to replace Cheung’s user speaker directional control
directing audio output toward a user by substituting Nemer’s user locating
technique using an array of microphones for the reasons given by the
Examiner. Final Act. 6—7. In the absence of evidence or persuasive
argument that the Examiner’s rationale is erroneous, we find the Examiner
has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In
5
Appeal 2014-003419
Application 13/358,403
contrast, Appellants fail to provide persuasive evidence or explanation
showing that the Examiner’s asserted combination is anything other than the
combination of familiar elements yielding no more than predictable results.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416—17. Such a combination is itself a sufficient
reasoning with rational underpinning to support a finding of obviousness.
Id.
Contention 2 — Claim 3
Appellants argue Nemer fails to teach or suggest a source, the
direction of which is determined by the direction finder of claim 1,
“comprises a predetermined voice learned by the direction finder” as recited
by claim 3. App. Br. 4. According to Appellants, rather than associate a
voice, Nemer’s feature extractor uses pattern matching to associate a
direction of arrival of sounds. Id. The Examiner responds by finding
“[d]uring the pattern matching process, feature extractor 302 extracts
features from speech data that has been obtained across a variety of
different directional responses of microphone array 202 as controlled by
steerable beamformer 206.” Ans. 28. The Examiner concludes “the sounds
of Nemer include speech data which is equivalent to the voice noted by the
Applicant.” Id.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. “FIG. 3
[referenced by the Examiner] is a block diagram that depicts one
implementation of speech DOA estimator 204 of FIG 2.” Nemer | 54.
Nemer further discloses “speech DOA estimator 204 advantageously utilizes
speaker recognition functionality to model and subsequently recognize
speech signals generated by the desired speaker when mobile telephony
6
Appeal 2014-003419
Application 13/358,403
terminal 100 is operated in a speakerphone mode, thereby facilitating a
highly accurate determination of the estimated DO A.” Id. According to
Nemer, pattern matcher 308 compares the processed feature set to reference
model 306 representing “the speaker whose speech is modeled.” That is, the
modeled speech has been “learned.” Nemer | 61. Therefore, under a broad
but reasonable interpretation, Nemer’s pattern matcher teaches or suggests
the sound source comprises a predetermined voice (i.e., “speech”) learned by
the direction finder (Nemer’s speaker localization system). In contract,
Appellants fail to identify sufficient evidence, including any disclosure of
the claimed limitation appearing in the Specification, describing the disputed
claim limitation that would distinguish over the system disclosed by Nemer
particularly in combination with the device described by Cheung.
Contention 3 — Claim 6
In rejecting claim 6 the Examiner finds “Cheung in view of Nemer in
view of Turbahn discloses a microphone in a pivot, flexible wire, or
rotatable member (e.g. arm) and using triangulation for localization (see
Turbahn para. 0090).” Final Act. 19. Cheung’s disclosure of mounting a
device used in beam forming, i.e., a speaker, is found at paragraph 39 of the
reference. See Ans. 28. Appellants argue Turbahn fails to disclose
at least one arm selectively extending from the housing to a
predetermined location relative to the housing, the at least one
arm having at least one of the microphones, the direction finder
locating the sound source by triangulating based in part on the
predetermined location of the arm [as recited by claim 6].
App. Br. 4.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because it attacks the Turbahn
reference alone but fails to address the Examiner’s findings in connection
7
Appeal 2014-003419
Application 13/358,403
with the Cheung reference and is, thus, an improper attack on the references
individually when the rejection is based on their combination, i.e., Cheung in
view of Nemer in view of Turbahn (Final Act. 19). “Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA1981)).
Contention 4 — Claim 12
Appellants argue “Nemer does not disclose identifying a voice to
determine a participant of a speakerphone telephone call [as required by
claim 12].” App. Br. 5. The Examiner responds by finding “feature
extractor 302 extracts features from speech data that has been obtained
across a variety of different directional response of microphone array 202.”
Ans. 29. The Examiner concludes “the sounds of Nemer include speech
data which is equivalent to voice.” Id.
Appellants’ argument that “Nemer’s pattern recognition is used to aid
DO A, not identify a participant” is substantively the same argument as
presented in connection with contention 2 and is unpersuasive for the same
reasons discussed supra. We note Appellants fail to identify any portion of
the Specification describing the disputed action of identifying a participant.
Therefore, under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the disputed
limitation and for the reasons discussed in connection with contention 2,
Nemer’s feature extractor 302 teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of
claim 12 including “determining that the end user is a participant of the
speakerphone telephone call.”
8
Appeal 2014-003419
Application 13/358,403
Contention 5 — Claim 15
Appellants argue “[a]s set forth above with respect to Claim 6,
Turbahn fails to disclose extending a microphone a predetermined distance
from a wireless handset.” App. Br. 5. Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive
because it fails to address the Examiner’s findings in connection with the
Cheung reference and is, instead, an attack on the references individually
when the rejection is based on their combination, i.e., “Cheung in view of
Nemer in view of Turbahn” (Final Act. 20—21). See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Contention 6 Claim 16
Contention 6 presents argument repetitious of that presented in
connection with contentions 3 and 5 and is unpersuasive for the same
reasons.
Summary
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and
17 and dependent claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cheung
and Nemer together with the rejections of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,
11, 13, 14, and 18—20 which are not argued separately with particularity.
Furthermore, for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 6, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cheung,
Nemer, and Turbahn.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
9
Appeal 2014-003419
Application 13/358,403
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10