Ex Parte Diethorn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12427823 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/427,823 0412212009
136582 7590 06/17/2016
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric John Diethorn
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.
508127-US-NP (CSM)
(A099)
CONFIRMATION NO.
7694
EXAMINER
INTAVONG, JIRAPON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
pto@sspatlaw.com
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC JOHN DIETHORN and HEINZ TEUTSCH
Appeal2015-001570
Application 12/427,823
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-001570
Application 12/427,823
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application concerns "the spatial presentation of audio at
a telecommunications terminal." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving at a first telecommunications terminal i) a first
signal conveying monaural audio from a first call participant who
is associated with a second telecommunications terminal and ii)
a first indication of a first status of the first call participant, the
first telecommunications terminal comprising a plurality of
loudspeakers;
rendering, via the plurality ofloudspeakers, the audio from
the first call participant, which is distributed among the plurality
of loudspeakers so as to appear to be coming from a first
direction when rendered, the first direction being based on the
value of the first indication;
monitoring, by a network element, for a change in the
status of the first call participant; and
providing an ability to change the first direction based
upon the change in the status of the first call participant.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 7-19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Bedingfield, Sr. et al. (US 8,085,920 B 1; Dec. 27, 2011)
("Bedingfield").
Claims 5, 6, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bedingfield.
2
Appeal2015-001570
Application 12/427,823
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend Bedingfield does not disclose the subject matter
recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular,
Appellants argue claim 1 requires monitoring the status of a speaker because
the claim recites "receiving ... a first signal conveying monaural audio from
a first call participant" and "monitoring ... for a change in the status of the
first call participant." See App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3. By contrast,
according to Appellants, the cited portions of Bedingfield disclose
monitoring the status of a listener. App. Br. 9. Appellants contend finding
that monitoring the status of a listener discloses "monitoring ... a change in
the status of the first call participant" is inconsistent with claim 1 's
"receiving" step because the "receiving" step establishes that "the first call
participant" is the speaker. See Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner concluded the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a
change in the status of the first call participant" encompasses a change in
direction of the first call participant with respect to a listener. See Ans. 14.
The Examiner found Bedingfield teaches that when a listener changes "focus
direction" (e.g., rotates), the direction of the first call participant with respect
to the listener changes, which in tum causes a change in the sound field
associated with the first call participant. See id. (discussing Bedingfield
14:6-29; Figs. 14, 15). The Examiner found "[i]t is irrelevant which
participant has movement, just that the status of the first call participant
[changes]." Id.
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Claim 1 's
"monitoring" step does not require monitoring the first call participant
3
Appeal2015-001570
Application 12/427,823
directly. Rather, this step merely recites "monitoring ... a change in the
status of the first call participant." The Examiner found that "a change in
the status of the call participant" includes a change in the direction of the
first call participant with respect to a listener. Appellants' specification
provides support for this interpretation. Appellants' specification explains
that a call participant characteristic (i.e., a "status of the call participant")
includes the "direction of the call participant in relation to the other
telecommunications terminal." Spec. i-f 27 (emphasis added); App. Br. 5
(citing Spec. i-f 27). Cf App. Br. 13 (Claim 3) ("The method of claim 1
wherein the first status of the first call participant comprises the direction of
the first call participant in relation to the second telecommunications
terminal."). In light of this, Appellants have not persuaded us the
Examiner's construction of "a change in the status of the call participant" is
erroneous.
Under this construction, monitoring a change in the focus direction of
the listener is "monitoring ... a change in the status of the first call
participant." There is no serious dispute that when the focus direction of the
listener changes, the direction of the first call participant with respect to the
listener (i.e., "the status of the first call participant") changes. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Dependent Claims 5, 6, and 20
Claims 5 and 20 each recite "wherein the first status of the first call
participant comprises product ownership." Claim 6 recites "wherein the first
status of the first call participant comprises credit score." Appellants argue
the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 6, and 20 improperly rely on design
4
Appeal2015-001570
Application 12/427,823
choice. App. Br. 9-11. In particular, Appellants contend there is "explicitly
or inherently a customer-supplier relationship" involved with product
ownership and credit score and "[a]ny number of related advantages can be
postulated once the product ownership and/ or credit score status is known."
Id. at 11. Appellants assert Bedingfield does not disclose any customer-
supplier relationship and accordingly "[t]here is no reason that ...
Bedingfield would have a need to retrieve a conference call participant's
product ownership information or credit score." Id. (emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue the Examiner therefore has not provided sufficient
reasoning to establish it would have been an obvious matter of design choice
to use either product ownership or credit score to group call participants. Id.
at 11.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner found
Bedingfield discloses grouping participants according to categories such as
company, team, job level, or other distinctions. Ans. 15 (discussing
Bedingfield's Figure 18 and column 16). The Examiner reasoned that it
would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use other categories
such as product ownership and credit score "depending on the conference
call topic as an organizational tool to assist the listener in memorizing which
participants are mapped in the same position" and found this change "would
have yield[ed] predictable results." Final Act. 18. Appellants have not
persuasively disputed this change would yield predictable results, and the
Examiner's common sense rationale provides sufficient reason to modify
Bedingfield's teachings in the proposed manner.
To the extent Appellants contend the Examiner was required to find
this rationale in the cited art, we disagree. The Examiner did not need to
5
Appeal2015-001570
Application 12/427,823
"seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Rather, the Examiner's obviousness analysis could "take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ," id., as well as "include recourse to logic, judgment, and common
sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require
explication in any reference or expert opinion," Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v.
InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We therefore sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 6, and 20.
Remaining Claims
Appellants have not presented separate, persuasive patentability
arguments for claims 2--4, 7-19, and 21. We therefore sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-21.
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
6