Ex Parte Enamito et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

13973767 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/973,767 08/22/2013
23623 7590 03/22/2018
AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP
127 Public Square
57th Floor, Key Tower
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Akihiko ENAMITO
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.
TTCIP429US 3970
EXAMINER
HOQUE, NAFIZ E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
hmckee@thepatentattomeys.com
rveri@thepatentattomeys.com
docket@thepatentattomeys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKIHIKO ENAMITO, OSAMU NISHIMURA, and
TAKAHIRO HIRUMA
(Additional Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba)
Appeal2017-006599
Application 13/973,767 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14. Claims 11, 12, 15, and 16
are allowed, and claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 are objected to as being dependent
upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. (Final Act. 4.) We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba as the Real Party in Interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2017-006599
Application 13/973,767
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a sound
reproduction control apparatus with loudspeaker groups generating sound
images with specified sound pressure ratios at control points. (Title,
Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A sound reproduction control apparatus comprising:
a first group of loudspeakers driven by a first sound
reproduction signal, radiating a plurality of first sounds having
same amplitude and same phase, and generating a first sound
image synthesized from the plurality of first sounds;
a second group of loudspeakers driven by a second sound
reproduction signal, radiating a plurality of second sounds
having same amplitude and same phase, and generating a second
sound image synthesized from the plurality of second sounds;
an[d]
a generation unit configured to generate the first sound
reproduction signal and the second sound reproduction signal so
that a first sound pressure ratio of a first control point to a second
control point apart from the first control point is equal to a second
sound pressure ratio of the first control point to the second
control point;
wherein
the first sound pressure ratio is formed by a third sound
radiated from a virtual sound source driven by a target sound
reproduction signal, and
the second sound pressure ratio is formed by a third sound
image synthesized from the first sound image and the second
sound image.
2
Appeal2017-006599
Application 13/973,767
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohta et al. (US 2009/0122994
Al, pub. May 14, 2009) in view of Sakai et al. (US 2012/0224701 Al, pub.
Sept. 6, 2012). (Final Act. 2--4.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue: 2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ohta and
Sakai teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claims 1, 5, 9, and
13. (App. Br. 8-12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2--4) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 6, 2016) (herein, "App.
Br."); the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 17, 2017) (herein, "Reply Br."); the Final
Office Action (mailed Nov. 6, 2015) (herein, "Final Act."); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 17, 2017) (herein, "Ans.") for the
respective details.
3
Appeal2017-006599
Application 13/973,767
Brief. (Ans. 2--4.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by
the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
Appellants argue the combination of Ohta and Sakai does not teach or
suggest the independent claims 1 and 5 limitations:
a first group of loudspeakers ... radiating a plurality of
first sounds having same amplitude and same phase, and
generating a first sound image synthesized from the plurality of
first sounds;
a second group of loudspeakers ... radiating a plurality of
second sounds having same amplitude and same phase, and
generating a second sound image synthesized from the plurality
of second sounds ....
(App. Br. 8-11.) Appellants' arguments consist of a description of the
references, accompanied by a conclusory statement reciting foregoing claim
limitations and asserting they are not taught or suggested by the references.
Appellants' arguments with respect to independent claims 9 and 13 rely on
arguments for claims 1 and 5. (App. Br. 11.) These arguments are
unpersuasive. Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim."). Merely alleging that the references fail to support an
obviousness rejection is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error.
Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F .3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Moreover, we are unpersuaded the Examiner errs in finding:
Ohta in view of Sakai discloses a first group of loudspeakers
(front left and surround left) driven by a first reproduction signal
and radiating a first plurality of sounds and second group of
4
Appeal2017-006599
Application 13/973,767
loudspeakers (front right and surround right) driven by a second
reproduction signal and radiating a second plurality of sounds.
Sakai clearly states all speakers have the same amplitude and
phase. Therefore, the first group of speakers have the same
amplitude and phase. Similarly, the second group of speakers
have the same amplitude and phase.
It is noted that the claims do not differentiate the first
group of speaker sounds and second group of speaker sounds.
For example, the claims do not recite wherein the first plurality
of sounds is different from second plurality of sounds and/or
wherein the first plurality of sounds amplitude and phase is
different from second plurality of sounds amplitude and phase.
(Ans. 3.)
In the Reply Brief, Appellants respond to the Examiner by submitting
amendments pursuant to 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.116, purporting to narrow the
independent claims at issue to require, "wherein the same amplitude and the
same phase of the plurality of first sounds are different from the same
amplitude and the same phase of the plurality of second sounds
respectively." (Reply Br. 5, 8.) However, amendments after a final
rejection must be submitted "before or on the same date of filing an appeal,"
and therefore we do not consider or accept this amendment. (37 C.F.R.
§ 1.116.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 13.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 over Ohta and Sakai.
5
Appeal2017-006599
Application 13/973,767
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 6, 10, and 14
over Ohta and Sakai, which rejections are not argued separately with
particularity. (App. Br. 11.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10,
13, and 14.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6