Ex Parte Moeller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2013

10646734 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KLAUS MOELLER, NIKLAS MOELLER, MIRCEA RUSU,
and CARL DERLA
___________

Appeal 2011-002335
Application 10/646,734
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002335
Application 10/646,734

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the rejection of claims 108-119. Appeal
Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to sound masking and networked remote
controllable sound masking and paging system. Specification 1.

Illustrative Claim
108. A sound masking system for masking sound in a physical
environment, said sound masking system comprising:
a communication network for said physical environment;
a plurality of sound masking units, at least some of said
sound masking units including a digital processor configured
for a sound masking signal generator and a communication
interface for coupling to said communication network for
receiving a plurality of control signals over said communication
network including a masking volume signal and a masking
frequency signal, and said sound masking signal generator
being responsive to said masking volume signal and said sound
masking frequency signal for generating a sound masking
output signal, said sound masking output signal having a
volume derived from said masking volume signal and a
frequency characteristic derived from said sound masking
frequency signal;
a control unit configured to generate said control signals
including said masking volume signal and said masking
frequency signal, and said control unit having a communication
interface for coupling to said communication network for
transmitting said control signals to selectively control operation
of said plurality of sound masking units.
Appeal 2011-002335
Application 10/646,734

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 108-118 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Orfield (U.S. Patent Number 4,319,088; issued March 9,
1982) and Shdema (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number
2002/0072816 A1; published June 13, 2002). Answer 4-12.
Claim 119 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Orfield, Shdema, and Ritter (U.S. Patent Number
4,686,693; issued August 11, 1987). Answer 12-13.

Issue
Do Orfield, Shdema and Ritter, either alone or in combination,
disclose or would have suggested a sound masking system having a
communication network, a plurality of sound masking units with some of the
sound masking units having configured digital processors for a sound
masking signal generator and a control unit having a communication
interface?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2011-002335
Application 10/646,734

4
Claim 108 recites a sound masking system having a communication
network, a plurality of sound masking units with some of the sound masking
units having configured digital processors for a sound masking signal
generator, and a control unit having a communication interface.
Appellants argue,
[T]he Examiner makes clear he is reading the sound masking
units on the slave units 16 shown in Fig. 2 of Orfield, and is
reading the control unit on the master unit 14 shown in Fig. 1 of
Orfield. In particular, the Examiner also reads the “sound
masking signal generator” in the sound masking unit of claim
108 on the speaker 62 in the slave unit 16 shown in Fig. 2 of
Orfield.

Reply Brief 3. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reasoning provided
in the Final Rejection differs from the reasoning provided in the Examiner’s
Answer. Id.
Appellants further contend that it is Orfield’s master unit 14 and not
the slave unit 16 that includes a masking sound generator 20. Id. at 4.
Appellants also argue that it is actually Orfield’s master unit 14 and not the
slave unit 16 that truly sends a single signal to the slave unit 16 and the
single signal drives a speaker 62 within the slave unit 16. Id. at 5. In
particular, Appellants argue, “The master unit 14 does not send separate
masking volume and sound masking frequency signals as required of the
control unit of claim 108.” Id.
However, we note that claim 108’s language does not require two
separate and distinct signals.
Appeal 2011-002335
Application 10/646,734

5
Appellants further argue that there is no rational underpinning to
modify Orfield’s slave units 16 by adding a processor as taught by Shdema
because:
The slave units 16 in Orfield are basically speakers, and all
processing of a signal to drive a speaker is performed at the
master unit 14; hence the terminology, master and slave used
with respect to these units. Placing a processor in the slave unit
16 would serve no purpose in achieving Orfield’s intended
purpose, and would also ruin or disrupt the master/slave
configuration intended by Orfield. As such this is a clear
teaching away from making such a modification, and the
combination would not have been obvious to one skilled in the
art.

Reply Brief 6.
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine
Orfield with the teaching of Shdema because:
Shdema discloses a digital processor receives and
transmits control signals over a communication network (see
figs 1-5) and an audio speaker network / communication
network comprising a plurality of speaker units including a
communication interface for coupling speaker units (114) (i.e.
sound masking units) to the communication network for
receiving and transmitting control signals over the
communication network (Fig. 1; page 3, [0028]-[0030]); and a
control unit (see fig.2 102) that has a network interface for
coupling the control unit to the communication network for
transmitting control signals over said communication network
to the speaker units (i.e. sound masking units), and the control
signals including signals for selectively controlling the
operation of said sound masking units (Fig. 1 and see page 4
[0032]-[0045]) in order to allow an operator to remotely control
the plurality of speaker units, which provides ease of adjusting
a plurality of parameters such as volume, speaker equalization,
and sound delay at a desired time; to receive status and/or
Appeal 2011-002335
Application 10/646,734

6
control information from the speaker unit; and to provide more
flexibility in a speaker system/network by allowing an operator
to transmit a message to only selected speakers in a network, or
in multiple networks or zones, rather than all speakers in a
network or zone.

Answer 5-6.
We agree with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. We do not find Appellants’
arguments pertaining to the modification of Orfield’s speakers (Reply Brief
6) persuasive because Shdema teaches computerizing speakers (Shdema,
Figure 1, paragraphs [0028-30]). Further, we find in view of Shdema’s
teachings that the Examiner satisfied the test for obviousness by providing
reasoning having a rational underpinning (Answer 6) for combining the
references. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981).
We also do not find Appellants’ argument that Orfield and Shdema
are not combinable because Shdema’s master/slave configuration would be
destroyed persuasive (Reply Brief 4). “[I]t is not necessary that the
inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed.
Cir. 1983)); In re Andersen, 391 F.2d 953, 958 (CCPA 1968)); see also In re
Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
Appeal 2011-002335
Application 10/646,734

7
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (citations omitted).
Finally, we do not find Appellants’ argument that Orfield fails to
disclose a “communication network” [Appeal Brief 30] because the
terminology is broad and reads upon Orfield’s communication configuration
(Orfield, column 6, lines 1-8).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
108, as well as, independent claims 114 and 116 that are commensurate in
scope. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 109-
113, 115, 117, and 118 not separately argued.
We did not find the combination of Orfield and Shdema to be
deficient, and therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 119 over Orfield, Shdema, and Ritter. See Appeal Brief 38-39.

DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 108-119 are
sustained.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc