Ex Parte Tsai

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2013

11680356 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LEONARD TSAI
____________________

Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-4 and 6-20 (App. Br. 4). Claim 5 has been cancelled (id.). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a remote control having a light
sensor and a microphone that can automatically calibrate at least one
parameter of the television system, such as the measuring of the time-of-
flight for sound emitted from a speaker (Abstract, Spec. ¶ [0009]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A remote control unit for a television system,
comprising:

a light sensor configured to sense ambient light and a
light from an image displayed by a remote television;

a microphone; and

logic configured to set a light threshold based on the
ambient light sensed by the light sensor, measure the light from
the image displayed by the remote television using the light
sensor, and measure a sound characteristic of the television
system based on the light sensed by the light sensor that
exceeds the light threshold and sound sensed by the
microphone, the logic further configured to transmit a wireless
signal based on a measurement of the sound characteristic by
the logic.

Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356

3
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jordan US 2002/0136414 Al Sep. 26, 2002
Mehrotra US 2004/0196250 Al Oct. 07, 2004
Mallinson US 2006/0290810 Al Dec. 28, 2006
Ramanath US 2007/0081102 A1 Apr. 12, 2007
(filed Oct. 11, 2005)
Choi US 2008/0068450 A1 Mar. 20, 2008
(filed Feb. 12, 2007)

Claims 1-41 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mallinson in view of Ramanath and Choi.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mallinson in view of Mehrotra.
Claims 102 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mallinson in view of Choi.
Claims 12-203 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mallinson in view of Jordan and Mehrotra.

1 Both the Examiner’s Final Office Action (Final O.A. 1) and the
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4) indicate that claims 2-4 and 7-9
(depending from claim 1) are rejected, although the Grounds of Rejection
states that only independent claim 1 is rejected (Ans. 4; App. Br. 9).
Additionally, since claims 7-9 depend from canceled claim 5 which
indirectly depends from independent claim 1, claims 7-9 depend from claim
1 (Spec. 19:15, 20:1, and 20:17-21).
2 Both the Examiner’s Final Office Action (Final O.A. 1) and the
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4) indicate that claim 10 (depending
from claim 1) is rejected, although the Grounds of Rejection states that only
dependent claim 11 is rejected (Ans. 9; App. Br. 9).
3 Both the Examiner’s Final Office Action (Final O.A. 1) and the Appellant’s
Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4) indicate that claims 13-20 (depending from claim
Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356

4

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Mallinson, Ramanath and Choi teaches
or would have suggested:
logic configured to set a light threshold based on the
ambient light sensed by the light sensor, measure the light from
the image displayed by the remote television using the light
sensor, and measure a sound characteristic of the television
system based on the light sensed by the light sensor that
exceeds the light threshold and sound sensed by the
microphone . . . .

(claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Mallinson
1. Mallinson discloses an audio/video system that comprises an
audio signal processing path having an audio path delay and a video signal
processing path having a video path delay; wherein, delay refers to a time
duration between an input being presented to the audio/video system (e.g. at
microphone) and an output being generated by the audio/video system (e.g.
at speaker) (¶ [0015]). The audio/video system 100 generates an audio
stimulus using the audio speakers 160 (¶ [0033]).

12) are rejected, although the Grounds of Rejection states that only parent
claim 12 is rejected (Ans. 10; App. Br. 9).
Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356

5
2. The audio/video sensor 180 detects a change in the video
display 155 and the audio speakers 160 caused by the audio/video stimulus
and detects the light reflected off the face of the viewer or other objects in
the room (¶ [0035]).
3. The remote control 410 includes timestamp and comparator
circuitry 425 to measure the time difference between the detected audio
stimulus and the detected video stimulus (¶ [0042]). The remote control 410
and the audio/video sensor 180 also include filtering, time-gating, and
threshold circuitry to prevent false detection of the audio/ video stimulus
(¶¶ [0036] and [0042]).
Ramanath
4. Ramanath discloses a system and process for automatically
adjusting the white point and contrast of images to account for changes in
ambient light; wherein, the display device accounts for changes in ambient
light to make a corresponding adjustment to the perceived white point
(¶ [0005]).
5. A processor 20 takes into account ambient light conditions in
evaluating whether to adjust the automatic white point correction (¶ [0033]).
Choi
6. Choi discloses a method and apparatus for displaying a moving
image that includes a preset threshold range for brightness information
which is between an upper and lower threshold set according to sensed
ambient brightness information (Abstract; claim 11).
Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356

6
IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4 and 7-9
Appellant contends that the “upper and lower thresholds used to
control gray level segmentation in a moving image as taught by Choi cannot
be reasonably interpreted as ‘logic configured to set a light threshold based
on the ambient light . . . and measure a sound characteristic of the
television system based on the light sensed by the light sensor that
exceeds the light threshold’” (App. Br. 10-11). Appellant argues that the
“white point balance [taught in Ramanath] is not a ‘sound characteristic’”
and “adjusting a white point balance cannot be reasonably construed as
teach[ing] or suggesting ‘measurement of a sound characteristic . . . based on
the light sense by the light sensor that exceeds the light threshold’” (App. Br.
11).
However, the Examiner finds that since “Mallinson teaches ‘[t]he
remote control 410 also includes timestamp and comparator circuitry 425 to
measure the time difference between detected audio stimulus and detected
video stimulus,’” “[t]he timestamp and comparator circuitry 425 are
equivalent to the [claimed] logic [configured to set a threshold based upon
ambient light and measures a sound characteristic]” (Ans. 6). The Examiner
finds further “that a threshold is inherently present in the detection of a
change of the video display [as disclosed in Mallinson],” since “there has to
be some minimum amount of light detected by the video sensor 180 that
corresponds to a change” (Ans. 15). The Examiner notes that although
“Mallinson teaches that this light threshold is based on the ambient light,
albeit this teaching is not very explicit therefore the teaching of Ramanath
and Choi have also been relied upon” (Ans. 16).
Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356

7
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “a light threshold”
means, includes, or represents other than it is set based upon the ambient
light sensed by the light sensor. Thus, we give “a light threshold” its
broadest but reasonable interpretation as a value set based on sensed light.
Further, claim 1 merely requires that the logic is “configured to”
perform operations including setting a threshold, measuring the light sensed
and the sound sensed based upon the light that exceeds the threshold. We
find such “configured to” language to merely represent a statement of
intended function of the logic circuitry. An intended function will not limit
the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the
invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-
Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, we conclude
that claim 1 merely requires that the logic circuitry is capable of performing
such intended functions.
Thus, we give claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation as
requiring a logic circuitry that is capable of setting a value based upon the
sensed ambient light, measuring light sensed by the light sensor, and
measuring a sound characteristic based upon the light exceeding the set
value and sensed sound.
Choi discloses a method that includes generating a preset threshold
range for brightness information which is between an upper and lower
threshold set according to sensed ambient brightness information (FF 6).
We find Choi’s system includes logic that is capable of setting a value based
upon the sensed ambient light.
Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356

8
Mallinson discloses an audio/video system that comprises an audio
signal processing path having an audio path delay and a video signal
processing path having a video path delay (FF 1). The audio/video sensor
detects a change in the video display and the audio speakers (caused by the
audio/video stimulus) and detects reflected light (FF 2). The remote control
includes timestamp and comparator circuitry to measure the time difference
between the detected audio stimulus and the detected video stimulus (FF 3).
We adopt the Examiner’s position that the detection of a change in the
video display and audio speaker inherently includes “some minimum
amount of light detected” or threshold (Ans. 15). We find that the
audio/video system includes logic capable of measuring light sensed by the
light sensor and measuring a sound characteristic (the time difference
between the detected audio stimulus and video stimulus) based upon the
light exceeding the threshold (detection of the change in the video display
and audio speaker) and sensed sound.
Ramanath discloses a system and process for automatically adjusting
the white point and contrast of images to account for changes in ambient
light (FF 4 and 5). We find that Ramanath’s system senses and measures
light, determining whether an action should take place if the sensed light is
above a certain threshold (the change in ambient light).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Mallinson, Ramanath, and Choi at least suggests the limitations of claim
1. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mallinson in view of Ramanath and Choi.
Further, claims 2-4 and 7-9 (depending from claim 1), which have not been
argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356

9
Claim 6
Appellant contends that the “[d]ifferences in processing delays
between audio and video streams [as taught in Mallinson] cannot be
reasonably interpreted to teach or suggest ‘a value indicative of an amount
of time that elapses between emission of sound from a speaker and detection
of sound by the microphone’” (App. Br. 13). Appellant argues that
“Mehrotra is directed toward evaluating colorimetry of a display system and
is absolutely silent with respect to sound calibration or any type of value
‘indicative of an amount of time that elapses between emission of sound
from a speaker and detection of sound by the microphone’” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that since the Specification states that
“the time-of-flight” is “the time difference between the detected audio and
video stimulus” (Ans. 19), “Mallinson is equivalent to what [Appellant]
claims” (Ans. 20).
Claim 6 does not place any limitation on what “determin[ing], based
on the light sensor and the microphone, an ambient light level and a value”
means, includes, or represents other than the value represents the amount of
time that elapses between emission of sound from the speaker and a
detection of the sound by the microphone.
Further, claim 6 merely requires that the logic is “configured to”
perform operations including determining an ambient light level and a time
difference. Thus, we conclude that claim merely requires a logic circuitry
capable of determining the ambient light level and a value for the difference
between emission of sound and detection of the same sound.
As noted supra, Mallinson discloses an audio/video sensor and a
remote control that includes the timestamp and comparator circuitry which
Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356

10
measure the time difference between the detected audio stimulus and the
detected video stimulus (FF 2 and 3). We adopt the Examiner’s finding that
the Specification discloses that the time-to-flight or the time difference
between the emission of sound from the speaker to the detection of this same
sound is equivalent to the time difference between the detected audio and
video stimulus (Ans. 19; Fig. 3; and Spec. ¶ [0032]). We find that
Mallinson’s remote control including the timestamp and comparator
circuitry comprise logic that is capable of determining the ambient light
level and a value for the difference between emission of sound and detection
of the same sound.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mallinson in view
of Mehrotra.
Claims 10 and 11
Appellant makes similar arguments that claim 11 is patentable over
the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App.
Br. 14).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Mallinson, Ramanath and Choi at least suggest all the features of claim 1.
In particular, Choi teaches a threshold set based upon the sensed ambient
light (FF 6). We, therefore, affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mallinson in view of Choi for the same
reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 14, supra.

4 Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 5 (a cancelled claim) which indirectly
depended from independent claim 1 (Spec.14:1-10 and 14:23-25).
Appeal 2012-006599
Application 11/680,356

11
Claims 12-20
Appellant makes similar arguments that claim 12 is patentable over
the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 6 (App.
Br. 16).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Mallinson and Mehrotra at least suggest all the features of claim 6. In
particular, Mallinson teaches determination of the amount of time that
elapses between the emission of sound from the speaker and detection of the
sound by the microphone (FF 3); wherein, “time-of-flight” (claim 12) means
the time representative of duration of the sound emitted from the speaker
and detected by the microphone (Spec. ¶ [0009]). We, therefore, affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 and of claims 13-20 (depending from claim
12) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mallinson in view of Jordan and Mehrotra
for the same reasons expressed with respect to claim 6, supra.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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

peb