Ex Parte Mayman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2013

11513957 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte AVRUM G. MAYMAN, SCOTT TALBOT YEWELL,
LEE ZAMIR, and LASZLO DRIMUSZ
__________

Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and DEMETRA J. MILLS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims directed to a docking station for a handheld media device, and a
receiving station. The claims have been rejected as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party-In-Interest as Bose Corporation (App.
Br. 2).

Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-18 and 20-41 are pending. Claims 1-18, 20-34, and 36-41
have been rejected and are subject to appeal.
The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
McCarty et al. US 2005/0195986 A1 Sept. 8, 2005
Asada US 2005/0265559 A1 Dec. 1, 2005
Schul et al. US 7,095,867 B2 Aug. 22, 2006
Fox US 2007/0077965 A1 Apr. 5, 2007
Cho et al. US 2007/0118240 A1 May 24, 2007
Dorogusker et al. US 2007/0201705 A1 Aug. 30, 2007
Mergler US 7,693,288 B2 Apr. 6, 2010
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
I. Claims 1-3 and 8-13 as unpatentable over Fox, McCarty, and
Asada (Ans. 3-7).
II. Claims 4 and 5 as unpatentable over Fox, McCarty, Asada, and
Dorogusker (Ans. 7-8).
III. Claim 7 as unpatentable over Fox, McCarty, Asada, and
Dorogusker (Ans. 8-9).
IV. Claim 6 as unpatentable over Fox, McCarty, Asada, and
Mergler (Ans. 9-10).
V. Claim 14 as unpatentable over Fox, McCarty, Asada, and Schul
(Ans. 10-11).
VI. Claims 15-18 and 20-26 as unpatentable over McCarty and
Dorogusker (Ans. 11-14).
VII. Claims 27, 28, 33, 34, 36, 40, and 41 as unpatentable over Fox
and McCarty (Ans. 14-18).
VIII. Claim 37 as unpatentable over Fox, McCarty, and Schul (Ans.
18).
Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957

3
IX. Claims 29, 30, and 32 as unpatentable over Fox, McCarty, and
Dorogusker (Ans. 18-20).
X. Claim 31 as unpatentable over Fox, McCarty, and Mergler
(Ans. 20-21).
XI. Claims 38 and 39 as unpatentable over Fox, McCarty, and Cho
(Ans. 21-22).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence of record.
1. Fox discloses a docking station for a music-enabled “MP3 type
cell phone” (Fox ¶ 5), “with provisions for employing the cell phone as a
music source for a personal entertainment center or similar amplified stereo
audio system” (id. at ¶ 1), such as “a home theater, home stereo, automotive
audio system, or portable stereo system” (id. at ¶ 4).
2. Figure 1 of Fox is reproduced below:

Figure 1 depicts an embodiment of Fox’s docking station, described
as follows:
Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957

4
[P]ortable stereo system 10 has a case or housing 12, with a cell
phone cradle 14 positioned at the center of the front panel, and
which is adapted for holding a cellular portable wireless phone
16. The cell phone 16 is a music-enabled phone, which has a
provision for downloading and storing music files, i.e., MP3
digital files, which can be selected and played over a set of
earphones that plug into a stereo socket or jack on the side or
back of the cell phone. In this embodiment, a cord or cable 20
extends from the front of the case 12 and has a mini-phone plug
18 that can be plugged into the socket at the side or back of the
cell phone 16. This permits the cell phone 16 to be used as a
source for music to be amplified and played by the portable
stereo system.
(Fox ¶ 20.)
3. McCarty discloses a “system for distributing one or more
signals, via a wired and wireless medium, for a home theater system”
(McCarty ¶ 2), designed to “do[] away with the routing of unsightly speaker
wires throughout a listening area” (id. at ¶ 5).
4. McCarty discloses:
[A] home entertainment system that comprises a speaker
housing having a loudspeaker . . . configured to broadcast a first
channel of an audio signal and a transmitter located proximate
to the speaker in a first selected area of a room and configured
to wirelessly transmit a plurality of channels of the audio signal
. . . . The home entertainment system further comprises a
receiver located remote from the transmitter in a second
selected area of the room, wherein the receiver is configured to
wirelessly receive the plurality of channels and a second
speaker housing located proximate to the receiver and having a
second loudspeaker and an amplifier, wherein the amplifier is
configured to amplify at least two of the received channels, and
wherein the second loudspeaker is configured to broadcast one
of the amplified channels and route the other amplified channel
to a third speaker housing.
(McCarty ¶ 9.)
Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957

5
5. Asada discloses a system “for correcting sound fields formed
by sounds output from speakers to space by . . . a multichannel audio system
or the like” (Asada ¶ 3). Asada’s system involves “time alignment” of
audible signals emitted from multiple speakers “so that sounds emitted from
the speakers can reach the listening position with the same timing” (id. at ¶
11), based on the “the structure of a listening room and the listening position
of the listener to the speakers” (id. at 5). In other words, when the “distance
between the listener and each speaker is unequal, thus causing the sound
arrival time from the speakers to differ” (id. at ¶ 6), the system can adjust the
position where audible signals from the speakers converge, to accommodate
a listener by delaying production of one audible signal relative to another.
6. Dorogusker discloses a media delivery apparatus 202 (i.e., a
docking station) for a portable media player 210, and further discloses a
remote controller 228, which “can interact with the user input controls 230
to select a media item to be played on the portable media player 210 with its
audio output being provided by the speakers 218 of the media delivery
apparatus 202” (Dorogusker ¶ 34). “The remote controller 228 can also be
used to alter the volume of the audio output from the media delivery
apparatus 202” (id.).
DISCUSSION
Rejections I-V and VII-XI
Collectively, rejections I-V and VII-XI cover claims 1-14, 27-34, and
36-41. Appellants do not make separate arguments for claims 2-14, 27-34,
and 36-41, but rely on the arguments made with respect to claim 1 for all
these claims. Nor do Appellants address any of these rejections other than
rejection I. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative for purposes of
Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957

6
deciding rejections I-V and VII-XI, and claims 2-14, 27-34, and 36-41 will
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Representative
claim 1 is reproduced below, with disputed limitations italicized:
1. A docking station for a handheld media device, comprising a
housing; a docking port in the housing for mechanically coupling the
handheld media device to the docking station; an interface disposed within
the docking port to make a wired electrical connection to the handheld
media device, circuitry within the housing for receiving content from the
handheld media device; a speaker included in the housing and coupled to the
circuitry to produce a first audible signal from content received from the
handheld media device through the interface, and a transmitter included
within the housing and coupled to the circuitry, the transmitter is configured
to wirelessly transmit content received from the handheld media device to a
remote speaker for producing a second audible signal on the remote
speaker, wherein the first and second audible signals are produced at
substantially the same time.
The Examiner finds that Fox discloses a docking station and integral
speaker for a handheld media device that meets all the limitations of claim 1,
except that the docking station does not include a transmitter configured to
wirelessly transmit content received from the handheld media device to a
second remote speaker to produce an audible signal. In addition, because
Fox’s docking station does not transmit to a remote speaker, it does not
produce audible signals from integral and remote speakers at substantially
the same time (Ans. 3-4).
However, the Examiner finds that McCarty discloses a housing which
includes a transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit content received
from a media device to a remote speaker, and concludes that it would have
been obvious to configure Fox’s device “to wirelessly transmit content
received from a [handheld media] device to a remote speaker” to produce an
audible signal on the remote speaker (id. at 5), “so that it is easier to
Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957

7
reconfigure the multi-channels wireless speakers around plurality of
locations . . . when generating the audio signals to be heard by listeners
including distant listeners in another room” (id. at 4).
In addition, the Examiner finds that Asada discloses a sound-field
correcting system wherein “first and second audible signals are produced at
substantially the same time” (id. at 5), and concludes that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to produce first and second
audible signals at the docking station speaker and the remote speaker at
substantially the same time “to provide the listener with the appropriate
corrected sound field effect dependent on the listener’s position” (id.).
Appellants contend that “[o]ne skilled in the art . . . would not see a
need to incorporate the wireless link of McCarty into the stereo audio system
of Fox” (App. Br. 6) because “[t]he problem that McCarty was trying to
resolve was having to run a wire from a front speaker group to a rear speaker
group . . . in a surround sound home theatre system” (id.), while Fox
“discloses a portable stereo audio system” (id.) which “already has two
speakers 28 to produce the left and right channels, so there is no need to
have a wireless link to one or more additional speakers because there are no
further audio channels to be reproduced” (id.).
Appellants further contend that Asada discloses producing audible
wavefronts at different times so that they arrive at the listening position at
the same time, and therefore does not disclose that “first and second audible
signals are produced at substantially the same time” (id. at 7).
These arguments are not persuasive. “[T]he [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957

8
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR
Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings
of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace; and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.
Id. McCarty teaches the general concept of transmitting an audio signal to a
remote location to produce a surround-sound effect, and further teaches
transmitting the signal wirelessly to eliminate the inconvenience associated
with wired transmission. We agree with the Examiner that adding this
feature to Fox’s docking station would have been obvious, and within the
ambit of “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.”2 Id. at 418. Moreover, the modification would have
yielded entirely predictable results. Id. at 416.
Similarly, while McCarty does not explicitly state that the various
speakers in its home theater system produce audible signals “at substantially
the same time,” Asada makes it clear that the speakers in a multiple speaker
system typically produce audible signals simultaneously in order to create a
sound field roughly equidistant from each of the speakers (unless the relative
timing of the signals is adjusted to compensate for a listener not ideally
positioned at the intersection of audible signals) (FF5). Therefore, we agree

2 Moreover, we note that McCarty further teaches that its home theater
system “can be used with an input device . . . that provides a multi-channel
audio signal without an associated video signal” (McCarty ¶ 52), such as a
stereo receiver or an MP3 player (id.).

Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957

9
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill
in the art to produce first and second audible signals at the docking station
speaker and the remote speaker at substantially the same time, in order to
create a sound field between the speakers.
Accordingly, rejections I-V and VII-XI are affirmed.
Rejection VI
Claims 15-18 and 20-26 stand rejected as unpatentable over McCarty
and Dorogusker.
Representative claim 15 is reproduced below, with the disputed
limitation italicized:
15. A receiving station comprising a housing; a receiver integrated
within the housing to receive from a docking station a wireless signal that
represents content provided to the docking station from a handheld media
device and information to control operations of the receiving station, a
speaker integrated within the housing and coupled to the receiver to produce
an audible signal from the received wireless signal, and a transmitter
integrated within the housing to wirelessly transmit a signal to control
operations of the docking station.
Claim 15 is directed to a receiving station that includes a speaker, a
receiver that receives wireless signals from a docking station to control
operations of the receiving station and a speaker, and a transmitter that
transmits a signal to the docking station to control operations of the docking
station.
The Examiner finds that McCarty discloses a receiving station with “a
receiver integrated within the housing to receive from a docking station a
wireless signal that represents content provided to the docking station from a
handheld media device and information to control operations of the
receiving station” (Ans. 11), and “a speaker integrated within the housing
Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957

10
and coupled to the receiver to produce an audible signal from the received
wireless signal” (id.).
The Examiner acknowledges that McCarty “fail[s] to disclose further
comprising a transmitter integrated within the housing to wirelessly transmit
a signal to control operations of the docking station” (id. at 12). However,
the Examiner finds that Dorogusker discloses “a transmitter integrated
within a housing to wirelessly transmit a signal to control operations of the
docking station device [from] a distant location” (id.), and concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify McCarty’s system “by adding a
transmitter integrated within a housing to wirelessly transmit a signal to
control operations of the docking station device so as to alter the volume and
other audio parameters of the two devices from a distant location” (id.).
We will reverse this rejection. As discussed above, claim 15 requires
a receiving station that includes a speaker, a receiver that receives wireless
signals from a docking station and a transmitter that transmits a signal to the
docking station to control operations of the docking station. If we
understand the Examiner’s proposed combination of McCarty and
Dorogusker, it would merely result in a remote controller that could interact
with the docking station and the remote speakers, which does not satisfy the
requirements of claim 15.
To the extent the Examiner “seems to be suggesting that it would have
been obvious . . . to put a transmitter into the subwoofer of 132 of McCarty
after seeing the remote control 228 of Dorogusker” (App. Br. 7), we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had a reason to include a transmitter in any of
Appeal 2011-013332
Application 11/513,957

11
McCarty’s speakers that would transmit a signal back to McCarty’s home
theater system, given the teachings of McCarty and Dorogusker.
The rejection of claims 15-18 and 20-26 as unpatentable over
McCarty and Dorogusker is reversed.
SUMMARY
Rejections I-V and VII-XI are affirmed, and rejection VI is reversed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc