Ex Parte Drel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

11521832 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

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.
11/521,832 09/15/2006 Leonid Drel 1630-2 1426
23869 7590 03/29/2012
HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP
6900 JERICHO TURNPIKE
SYOSSET, NY 11791
EXAMINER
CHAN, KAWING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LEONID DREL, MARK MATTHEWS, MIKHAIL
KUPRIYANOV, ALEXANDER PISAREVSKY, DENIS
SEREBRYANSKY, and DMITRY BONDAR
____________________

Appeal 2010-000015
Application 11/521,8321
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and DEBRA K.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is GCI Technologies Corp.
Appeal 2010-000015
Application 11/521,832

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 22, and 23, which are all the claims pending. Claims 2 and 5-
21 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The present invention “relates to a device for playing digital audio
files wherein the user can dynamically manipulate and control playback
parameters of the audio files by the operation of controls devices
incorporated into the playback device.” (Spec., 1:[0001].)

Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An audio playback and manipulation system for generating
sound from digital audio files comprising:

a central playback unit having a computer processor, a software
controlled switch, and an external memory interface for providing access to
random access memory and read only memory;

a mass storage host controller for providing access to and control of
data from at least two mass storage devices wherein each mass storage
device contains a plurality of audio files;

at least two control units, where each of said at least two control units
is coupled to a user control device for selecting at least one audio file for
playback, and where each user control device controls one or more playback
parameters, wherein said playback parameters are selected from fading,
varying the pitch, varying the tempo, varying the reverb, varying the
Doppler, varying the wobble of the audio output, adding custom sound
effects, sampling, hot cueing, key lock, and master tempo; and

Appeal 2010-000015
Application 11/521,832

3
an audio subsystem and at least one digital to analog converter, for
converting the audio files into sound;

wherein the at least two control units can simultaneously control a
plurality of audio files stored on the at least two mass storage devices, and
output a manipulated audio data stream to the audio subsystem.

Rejections2
Claims 1, 3, 4, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Georges (US Patent Pub. 2003/0131715 A1, Jul. 17,
2003), Roman (US Patent Pub. 2005/0146996 A1, Jul. 7, 2005), Yamada
(US Patent Pub. 2001/0011497 A1, Aug. 9, 2001), and Blanco (US Patent
Pub. 2005/0064935 A1, Mar. 24, 2005).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 22, and 23
Appellants argue claims 1, 3, 4, 22 and 23 as a group (App. Br. 8-16).
For claims 3, 4, 22, and 23, Appellants repeat the same argument made for
claim 1. We will, therefore, treat claims 3, 4, 22, and 23 as standing or
falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 590 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art discloses at
least two control units that can simultaneously control a plurality of audio
files stored on the at least two mass storage devices, as set forth in claim 1?

2 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph to claims 1 and 23 has
been withdrawn in response to Appellants’ amendment filed January 23,
2009. (see Ans. 2-3.)
Appeal 2010-000015
Application 11/521,832

4

Appellants contend that “Roman fails to disclose the use of multiple
user controller interfaces to simultaneously manipulate one audio file in the
same mass storage device.” (App. Br. 8.) Appellants further contend that
“Roman fails to provide a system with multiple user controller interfaces
capable of controlling multiple external mass storage devices
simultaneously.” (App. Br. 8-9)(emphasis added.)

The Examiner found that many of the features that Appellants argue
“are not recited in claim 1.” (Ans. 7.) We agree with the Examiner.
Specifically, Appellants contend that the cited art does not “use of multiple
user controller interfaces to simultaneously manipulate one audio file in the
same mass storage device.” (see App. Br. 8.) However, claim 1 does not
require simultaneously manipulating one audio file in the same mass storage
device. Instead, claim 1 merely requires simultaneously controlling a
plurality of audio files stored on the at least two mass storage device. (see
Claim 1.) We agree with the Examiner that Claim 1 does not require
manipulating “the same mass storage device” nor does claim 1 require that
the at least two mass storage devices be “external devices.”
Initially, we note that although Appellants argue “the same mass
storage device” and “external mass storage device,” Appellants have chosen
to draft the claims, claim 1 in particular, far more broadly. During patent
prosecution, claims are construed as broadly as is reasonable. Hence, the
claimed “mass storage device” reads on any storage device, not merely the
“same” or an “external” device. It is the claims that measure the invention.
Appeal 2010-000015
Application 11/521,832

5
See SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (en banc). “[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Here, the Examiner
need only find “at least two control units [that] can simultaneously control a
plurality of audio files stored on the at least two mass storage devices.”
Roman discloses a playback unit that includes a digital storage drive
that must “be capable of dual streaming of data.” In Roman, “[t]his feature
is critical to the disc jockey because he or she must be able to play music
stored on the drive and simultaneously ready for play, copy music from the
media readers 110, 112, or edit play lists stored on the drive.” (see Roman,
[0021].) Similarly, Blanco discloses a method that allows users to create
and play soundtracks in a gaming system. (see Blanco, [0023].) In Blanco,
up to four controllers can be used and the game console is equipped with an
internal hard disk drive and a portable media drive. (see Blanco, [0024].)
In other words, as illustrated in at least the combination of Roman and
Blanco, the Examiner has found systems whereby at least two control units
can simultaneously control a plurality of audio files stored on the at least two
mass storage device. Thus, based upon our review of the record, we find
that the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position as
articulated in the Answer.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1,
3, 4, 22, and 23. Accordingly, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 22,
and 23.

Appeal 2010-000015
Application 11/521,832

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

tkl