Ex Parte Rekimoto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 8, 2013

11155487 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2013)

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.
11/155,487 06/20/2005 Junichi Rekimoto SON-3368 3613
23353 7590 07/08/2013
RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC
LION BUILDING
1233 20TH STREET N.W., SUITE 501
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
EXAMINER
BLAIR, KILE O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/08/2013 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 JUNICHI REKIMOTO
____________________

Appeal 2012-006395
Application 11/155,487
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-006395
Application 11/155,487

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10. Claims 2 and 7 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is generally related to “playback
systems, headphones, playback apparatuses and methods, and recording
media and programs for controlling the playback apparatuses and
methods[.]” (Spec. 1). The Specification discloses a playback system that is
“capable of further increasing playback time.” (Id.).
Independent claim 6, reproduced below (footnote added), is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
6. A playback method of a playback apparatus supplying an
electrical signal to headphones that are worn on a user’s body
and that convert the electrical signal into sound, the playback
method comprising the steps of:

measuring a capacitance between a first electrode
provided in a first converter so as to be in contact with the
user’s body, the first converter converting the electrical signal
in a right channel of the headphones into sound, and a second
electrode provided in a second converter so as to be in contact
with the user’s body, the second converter converting the
electrical signal in a left channel of the headphones into sound;

determining whether or not the headphones are being
worn on the user’s body in accordance with the capacitance
measured in the measuring step by determining whether the
Appeal 2012-006395
Application 11/155,487

3
capacitance measured by the measuring means1 exceeds a
predetermined capacitance threshold; and

controlling a state of the playback apparatus in
accordance with the determination result in the determining step
wherein controlling said state includes changing a power-
supply mode of the playback apparatus from a power-supply
normal mode to a power-supply hold mode or from a power-
supply hold mode to a power-supply normal mode when it is
determined that the capacitance exceeds the predetermined
capacitance threshold value,

wherein all operations of the playback apparatus are
driven by a battery during the power-supply normal mode, and

wherein limited operations of the playback apparatus are
driven by the battery during the power-supply hold mode, the
limited operations including operations for receiving user
operations and excluding operations for playing back sound. 

REFERENCES
Lenz US 5,144,678 Sep. 1, 1992
Ishimaru JP 05-062290 A Mar. 12, 1993

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ishimaru and Lenz.

ANALYSIS
In this decision, we have considered only those arguments actually
made by Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did

1 We note “the measuring means” lacks proper antecedent basis and leave it
to the Examiner to address in any further prosecution.
Appeal 2012-006395
Application 11/155,487

4
not make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived.2 Because of the similarity of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal
Brief, which fail to make claim-specific arguments, we will decide the
appeal with respect to claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 on the basis of claim 6 alone.3
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is “both technically and
legally unsound and should therefore be reversed.” (App. Br. 14).
Appellant contends Ishimaru teaches a “sound reproducing device is either
in an ‘on’ state or an ‘off’ state of reproducing sound depending on whether
the headphones are be[ing] worn or not” which “does not allow for the
limited operations for receiving user operations while excluding operations
for playing back sound during power-supply hold mode.” (App. Br. 17).
Appellant further contends although Lenz “discloses that it is well known
that the human body acts in a manner similar to a capacitor” from which
voltage/current can be measured, Lenz “does not remedy the deficiencies of
Ishimaru [], as the various features recited above are also absent from Lenz
[].” (App. Br. 18).
The Examiner finds when the term “user operations” is given its
“broadest reasonable interpretation”4 “‘user operations’ is a term that
encompasses the operations by the user of placing headphones on the head
and removing headphones from the head.” (Ans. 9). In support, Examiner
cites to Appellant’s specification:
In other words, when the user takes off the headphones 111,
the power-supply mode of the music player 112 is changed

2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
3 Id.
4 In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO gives
claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’ In re Hyatt, 211 F. 3d
1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).”).
Appeal 2012-006395
Application 11/155,487

5
from the power-supply normal mode to the power-supply hold
mode. Then, when the user wears the headphones 111, the
power-supply mode of the music player 112 can be changed
from the power-supply hold mode to the power-supply
normal mode again.
(Ans. 9 quoting Spec. 30, filed June 20, 2005, corresponding to Spec.
33, filed July 6, 2006 (emphasis added by Examiner)).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues “the limited operations
driven by the battery include the operations of play, stop, pause, fast-
forward, and the like.” (Reply Br. 6).
We disagree with Appellant and note that “analysis [of whether the
subject matter of a claim would have been obvious] 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 creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”5 The Examiner maintains
“the reproduction motion control section 3 [of Ishimaru] is inherently driven
by the battery power supply Vcc in order to detect whether the headphones
are subsequently placed on a user’s head as described” (Ans. 6 citing
Ishimaru, para. [0019]). We agree with the Examiner and further find it is
obvious that the detect subcircuit 96 of Lenz evidence’s limited operations
driven by the battery.
Additionally, we note Lenz states:
FIGS. 5-7 illustrate [a] headset 90 with a switch actuating
device 92 that is part of an electronic switch . . . [which]

5 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re
Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take
into account not only specific teachings of the references but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom”) (citations omitted)).
Appeal 2012-006395
Application 11/155,487

6
includes a detect subcircuit 96 connected to the actuator 92, and
constructed to sense when the actuator or sensor device 92
touches the wearer, and especially his skin.
(Lenz, col. 3, lines 53-58, Figs. 5-7).
From the teachings of Ishimaru in view of Lenz, we conclude it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to measure
capacitance through an electrically connected circuit to monitor whether the
headphones had been placed on a wearer’s body which meets the limitation
of “limited operations of the playback apparatus are driven by the battery . . .
the limited operations including operations for receiving user operations . . .”
as recited in claim 6. We further agree with the Examiner and find “taking-
on/taking-off the headphones” (Ans. 9) meets the limitation of “operations
for receiving user operations.” Therefore, Appellant’s arguments do not
show error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness and we will sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting 1, 3-6, and 8-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10 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).

AFFIRMED
Vsh/llw