Ex Parte Eaton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2014

11020400 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014)

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.
11/020,400 12/22/2004 William Chris Eaton 9314-96 6418
54414 7590 10/15/2014
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
ORTIZ SANCHEZ, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/15/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM CHRIS EATON, YOJAK VASA,
and MARTIN TRIVELY
____________

Appeal 2012-005105
Application 11/020,400
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–11 and 16–28. Claims 12–15 and 29 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-005105
Application 11/020,400

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates generally to “communications devices
and, more particularly, to audio circuits of communications devices and
methods of operating the same.” Spec. 1:2–4.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative. It reads as follows:
1. A method of processing wireless signals received at a
mobile communications device, comprising:
receiving a first audio signal from a first source at the
mobile communications device;
receiving a second audio signal from a second source at the
mobile communications device, the mobile communications
device being positioned remote from both the first and second
sources; and
assigning the first audio signal to a first speaker channel and
the second audio signal to a second speaker channel, different
from the first speaker channel, such that sounds emanating from
the mobile communications device responsive to the first and
second audio signals are perceivably dimensionally separate
from one another, wherein receiving the first and second audio
signals comprises receiving the first and second audio signals as
a single non-predetermined composite signal at the
communications device.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Richenstein US 2003/0083024 A1 May 1, 2003
Howard US 6,804,340 B2 Oct. 12, 2004
Curry US 7,012,630 B2 Mar. 14, 2006
Rhoads US 7,702,511 B2 Apr. 20, 2010

Appeal 2012-005105
Application 11/020,400

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–5, 9–11, 16–23, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Howard,
Richenstein, and Rhoads. Ans. 4–12.
Claims 6–8 and 24–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Howard, Richenstein, Rhoads,
and Curry. Ans. 12–16.

ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Howard, Richenstein, and Rhoads teaches or
suggests “wherein receiving the first and second audio signals comprises
receiving the first and second audio signals as a single non-predetermined
composite signal at the communications device,” as recited in claim 1, and
similar limitations recited in independent claims 16 and 20, and whether the
Examiner erred in combining Howard, Richenstein, and Rhoads.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–11
The Examiner finds Howard teaches all elements of claim 1 except
processing “wireless” signals in a “mobile” communication device and
“receiving the first and second audio signals comprises receiving the first
and second audio signals as a single . . . composite signal at the
communications device.” Ans. 5. The Examiner nonetheless finds
Richenstein teaches a wireless transmission device for communicating a
plurality of audio streams to remote devices, as well as combining a plurality
Appeal 2012-005105
Application 11/020,400

4
of digital audio streams into a predetermined format to form an input and
transmitting it to a remote device for further processing. Ans. 5. The
Examiner finds, moreover, that Rhoads teaches a composite embedded code
signal that is composed of individual code signals generated on an arbitrary
scale, where the distributable composite signal has the original signal and
contains other embedded information. Ans. 6.
Appellants argue “[t]he Final Action admits that the combination of
Howard and Richenstein fails to teach ‘a single non-predetermined
composite signal as recited in Claim 1. However, the Final Action points to
Rhoads as providing the missing teachings. Appellants respectfully
disagree.” App. Br. 6–7 (citations omitted). According to Appellants,
[T]he cited portion of Rhoads discusses a composite embedded
code signal that contains N individual embedded codes signals,
which are generated on an arbitrary scale. In other words,
the individual embedded codes are arbitrarily generated;
however, the composite embedded code signal is not. . . .
In stark contrast, Claim 1 recites “wherein receiving the
first and second audio signals comprises receiving the first and
second audio signals as a single non-predetermined composite
signal at the communications device.” As discussed on page 8
of the Specification, “non-predetermined” is not directed to the
audio sources, but to the positioning of the segmentation of the
bursts.” Appellants agree that the cited portion of Rhoads uses
the word “arbitrary,” however, only the individual embedded
codes are generated arbitrarily, not the composite signal.
App. Br. 7–8.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that Rhoads
teaches “a random/or arbitrary signal can be added to the original signal, to
transport additional information with the signal. The signal as a whole with
the embedded arbitrary signals can be considered a non-predetermined
Appeal 2012-005105
Application 11/020,400

5
signal because the combined signal has arbitrary parameters.” Ans. 17. The
Examiner further finds that “if the Rhoads code signal is composed of N
embedded arbitrarily generated code signals”—a point that Appellants
make (see App. Br. 7)—“then the signal itself is arbitrary because its
components are arbitrary. In this case an arbitrary signal is analogous to a
non-predetermined composite signal, because the components of the signal
are arbitrarily generated and therefore not predetermined.” Ans. 17–18
(citations omitted).
We agree with the Examiner. During examination, “claims . . . are to
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The claim term “non-
predetermined signal” is undefined and does not appear in Appellants’
Specification. Moreover, the word “non-predetermined” appears only once
in the Specification, in the context of allocation of time-displaced bursts of a
composite audio signal to different sources, where it is stated that “[t]he
allocation could be in a predetermined manner” or “[a]lternatively, the
segmentation can be in a non-predetermined fashion and additional control
information could be provided.” Spec. 8:9–15. Although that disclosure
suggests that the term “non-predetermined signal” might encompass a signal
“segmented” in a “non-predetermined fashion,” there is no basis for limiting
the term to such a narrow embodiment. Given the lack of further guidance,
we agree with the Examiner that a signal having embedded arbitrary signals
can also reasonably be considered to be a “non-predetermined signal.”
Appeal 2012-005105
Application 11/020,400

6
Appellants additionally argue there is no motivation to combine the
cited references as suggested in the Final Action. App. Br. 8. We are
unpersuaded of error, because we conclude the Examiner has articulated
reasoning for the combination, with rational underpinning drawn from the
cited references to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In particular, the
Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to combine Howard’s method with the teachings
of Richenstein for the benefit of reducing the number of transmission
channels being used, Ans. 5, as well as to combine the Richenstein
transmission system with the teachings of Rhoads for the benefit of having
an arbitrary composite signal that also contains additional information for
the purpose of transmitting additional information encoded in the signal,
Ans. 6. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner elaborates as
follows:
Howard teaches a system for encoding speech for transmission
(see abstract), and Rhoads teaches an invention related to audio
encoding and decoding (abstract) which are both in the same
field of endeavor. Richenstein is also directed to wireless
transmission of audio streams and it teaches encoding of the
signals prior to transmission (see abstract). The Rhoads
invention teaches in col. 1, lines 19-22, that the signal
processing relates to processing audio signals and to embed
auxiliary data (such as identification or control data) in the
signals, so that it can be subsequently extracted and used. The
addition of arbitrary signals to the signal being encoded would
only benefit the Howard and Richenstein invention by allowing
additional control data to be sent along with the audio signal.
Ans. 18–19.
Appeal 2012-005105
Application 11/020,400

7
On the record before us, therefore, we do not find error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Howard, Richenstein, and
Rhoads discloses “wherein receiving the first and second audio signals
comprises receiving the first and second audio signals as a single non-
predetermined composite signal at the communications device,” as recited in
claim 1. We also do not find error in the Examiner’s combination of
Howard, Richenstein, and Rhoads.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of independent claim 1, as well as of dependent claims 2–5 and 9–
11 not separately argued, over Howard, Richenstein, and Rhoads, and of
dependent claims 6–8 not separately argued over Howard, Richenstein,
Rhoads, and Curry.
Claims 16–28
Appellants do not raise separate substantive arguments with respect to
independent claims 16 and 20 or their respective dependent claims 17–19
and 21–28, arguing only that “independent Claims 16 and 20 include similar
recitations to the highlighted recitations of Claim 1” and “the claims that
depend therefrom are patentable over the cited combination for at least the
reasons discussed above.” App. Br. 9. Accordingly, for the reasons stated
above with respect to claim 1, we further sustain the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 16–23, 27, and 28 over Howard, Richenstein,
and Rhoads, and of claims 24–26 over Howard, Richenstein, Rhoads, and
Curry.

Appeal 2012-005105
Application 11/020,400

8
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Howard,
Richenstein, and Rhoads teaches or suggests “wherein receiving the first and
second audio signals comprises receiving the first and second audio signals
as a single non-predetermined composite signal at the communications
device,” as recited in claim 1, and similar limitations recited in independent
claims 16 and 20; and the Examiner also did not err in combining Howard,
Richenstein, and Rhoads.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–11 and 16–28 as set
forth above. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc