Ex Parte Armstrong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

13424246 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/424,246 03/19/2012
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.
GB920100102US1 2537
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
Appeal2017-004939
Application 13/424,246
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-004939
Application 13/424,246
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 19, and 23-34, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[ t ]ranslating user interface sounds into
3D audio." (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 19, reproduced below, exemplify the
subject matter on appeal:
Claim 1: A system for translating event sounds into 3-
dimensional (3D) audio space, comprising:
a computer comprising a processor; and
components which are executable, using the processor,
compnsmg:
an audio driver including a listener, the listener for
intercepting an audio request call received from a
process, wherein:
the audio request call relates to a process having an
open window on as graphical user interface ( GUI) of a
2-dimensional (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; and
a surround sound component for instructing a surround
sound system to play the corresponding sound as moving
through the 3D audio space between each of the at least
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. (See App. Br. 5.)
2
Appeal2017-004939
Application 13/424,246
two positions to thereby notify a user of the 2D GUI
device of the change in current status of the process.
Claim 19: A system for translating event sounds for a 2-
dimensional (2D) graphical user interface into 3-dimensional
(3D) audio space, comprising:
a computer comprising a processor; and
components which are executable, using the processor,
compnsmg:
an audio driver including a listener, the listener for
intercepting 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;
an audio positioning component for determining a predefined
3D origin point in the specified process-specific subset and
adding, to the determined predefined 3D origin point, the
received 3D offset to thereby calculate a position within the
specified process-specific subset; and
a surround sound component for instructing a surround sound
system to play the corresponding sound 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.
3
Appeal2017-004939
Application 13/424,246
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 B 1 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, 23, 29, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Liu, Stroud, and Hilpert. (See Final Act. 4--
10.)
2. Claims 19, 24--28, and 32-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Liu, Stroud, Hilpert, and Robertson. (See
Final Act. 10-24.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites a system that includes a "listener for intercepting an
audio request call received from a process" where "the audio request call ...
specifies at least two positions, within a 3D audio space." Claim 19 recites
"a listener ... for intercepting an audio request call received from a process"
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 19
together and found the "request" limitations met in Stroud. (See Final Act.
5---6.) In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argued that "all of the cited portions
4
Appeal2017-004939
Application 13/424,246
of Stroud are completely silent on intercepting an audio request call that
'specifies at least two positions, within a 3D audio space."' (App. Br. 17-
19.) In the Answer, the Examiner acknowledged that "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. 6-7.)
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.
Because the Examiner has not shown how the combination teaches or
suggests the claimed request with two positions, we do not sustain the
Section 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 19 and 29, or dependent claims 2, 23-
28, and 30-34, all of which also include that limitation. Because this issue is
dispositive, we do not reach Appellants' other arguments.
5
Appeal2017-004939
Application 13/424,246
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 19, and 23-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
REVERSED
6