Ex Parte Armstrong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

13462740 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/462,740 05/02/2012
43168 7590 12/26/2018
LAW OFFICE OF MARCIAL. DOUBET, P. L.
PO BOX 1087
Lake Placid, FL 33862
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew A. Armstrong
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.
GB920100102US2 8508
EXAMINER
MRABI, HASSAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
mld@mindspring.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW A. ARMSTRONG,
JONATHAN C. MACE, and MATTHEW D. WHITBOURNE
Appeal2017-001986
Application 13/462,740
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-001986
Application 13/462,740
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 18, and 21-25, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[ t ]ranslating user interface sounds into
3D audio." (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 18, reproduced below, exemplify the
subject matter on appeal:
Claim 1 : A method for translating event sounds into 3-
dimensional (3D) audio space, comprising:
intercepting, by a listener process, an audio request call
received from a process, wherein:
the audio request call relates to a process having an open
window on a graphical user interface ("GUI") of a 2D GUI
device and specifies at least two positions, within a 3D audio
space;and
the audio request call requests to play a sound
corresponding to a change in current status of the process;
playing the corresponding sound in a surround sound system
as moving through the 3D audio space between each of the at
least two positions to thereby notify a user of the 2D GUI
device of the change in current status of the process.
Claim 18: A method for translating event sounds for a 2-
dimensional (2D) graphical user interface into 3-dimensional
(3D) audio space, comprising:
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. (See App. Br. 5.)
2
Appeal2017-001986
Application 13/462,740
intercepting, by a listener process, an audio request call
received from a process, wherein:
the audio request call relates to a process having an open
window on a graphical user interface ("GUI") of a 2D GUI
device and specifies a predefined process-specific subset of a
3D audio space and a 3D offset within the specified subset;
and
the audio request call requests to play a sound
corresponding to occurrence of an event of the process;
determining a predefined 3D origin point in the specified
process-specific subset;
adding, to the determined predefined 3D origin point, the
received 3D offset to thereby calculate a position within the
specified process-specific subset; and
playing the corresponding sound in a surround sound system
in the calculated position within the specified process-specific
subset of the 3D audio space to thereby notify a user of the 2D
GUI device of the occurrence of the event of the process.
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hilpert, Jr. et al. US 6,404,442 B 1 June 11, 2002
Robertson et al. US 6,414,677 Bl July 2, 2002
Liu et al. US 2012/0105603 Al May 3, 2012
Stroud et al. US 8,768,494 Bl July 1, 2014
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, and 4 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent
Application No. 13/424,246. (See Final Act. 4--5.)
3
Appeal2017-001986
Application 13/462,740
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Liu, Stroud, and Hilpert. (See Final Act. 5-12.)
3. Claims 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Liu, Stroud, Hilpert, and Robertson. (See Final Act. 12-
19.)
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting
Because Appellants present no arguments regarding double patenting
(see App. Br. 36-37), we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and
4 for obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent
Application No. 13/424,246 which, we note, is before us in Appeal No.
2017-004939.
Obviousness
Claim 1 recites "intercepting ... an audio request call received from a
process" where "the audio request call ... specifies at least two positions,
within a 3 D audio space." Claim 18 recites "intercepting ... an audio
request call" where "the audio request call ... specifies a predefined
process-specific subset of a 3D audio space and a 3D offset within the
specified subset."
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner addressed claims 1 and 18
together and found the "request" limitations met in Stroud. (See Final Act.
6-7.) In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argued that "all of the cited portions
of Stroud are completely silent on intercepting an audio request call that
'specifies at least two positions, within a 3D audio space."' (App. Br. 15-17
(emphasis omitted).) In the Answer, the Examiner acknowledged that
4
Appeal2017-001986
Application 13/462,740
"Stroud do[es] not teach or suggest an audio request call that specifies at
least two positions, within a 3D audio space." (Ans. 4.) Instead, the
Examiner cited Hilpert as teaching "generating sounds to identify a self-
contained 2D screen area and wherein the selected sound can be a moving
sound such as moving away or closer from the computer display." (Ans. 5.)
Appellants reply that the cited portions of Hilpert "also fail to disclose
"intercepting ... an audio request call [that] specifies at least two positions."
(Reply Br. 6.)
We agree with Appellants. Although Hilpert does explain that sound
can move in 3-D space (see, e.g., Hilpert 7:6-11 ("the perceived 'location'
of the voice ... can move around in 3-D space to indicate the relative
position of an 'object' in relation to a designated 'origin"'), we do not find,
in the portions of the reference cited by the Examiner or elsewhere, a
teaching or suggestion of a "request" that "specifies at least two positions,
within a 3D audio space." The reference is silent on how the movement is
accomplished, and the Examiner does not explain why it would have been
necessary or obvious to use a request that specifies two positions, as in claim
1, or a request that includes a subset and a 3D offset, as in claim 18.
Because the Examiner has not shown how the combination teaches or
suggests the claimed requests, we do not sustain the Section 103(a)
rejections of claims 1 and 18, or dependent claims 2, 4, and 21-25, all of
which include the "request" limitations. Because this issue is dispositive, we
do not reach Appellants' other arguments.
5
Appeal2017-001986
Application 13/462,740
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 for obviousness-type double
patenting is affirmed. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 18, and 21-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
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-in-PART
6