Leonard, Colin

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2020

15257642 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2020)

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.
15/257,642 09/06/2016 Colin Leonard BPSMT0003CL 9903
27939 7590 09/24/2020
Philip H. Burrus, IV
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
SAUNDERS JR, JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2020 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):
kberry@burrusiplaw.com
pburrus@burrusiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte COLIN LEONARD
Appeal 2019-002401
Application 15/257,642
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Colin Leonard.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002401
Application 15/257,642

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to “analog audio processing systems.” Spec.
¶ 2. Specifically, the invention is directed to an “improved mastering
system” that “allows for analog mastering from remote locations.” Id. ¶ 4.
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 3 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter in dispute, and is reproduced below along
with the claims from which it depends:
1. An audio processing system, comprising:
a server complex in communication with a network, the
server complex receiving a digital audio file and one or more
analog domain control settings from a remote device across the
network;
a digital-to-analog converter receiving the digital audio
file from the server complex and converting the digital audio file
to an analog signal;
one or more analog signal processors receiving the analog
signal from the digital-to-analog converter and applying at least
one analog modification to the analog signal in accordance with
the one or more analog domain control settings received from the
remote device to the analog audio to obtain a modified analog
signal; and
an analog-to-digital converter converting the modified
analog signal to a modified digital audio file.
2. The audio processing system of claim 1, further
comprising a control device operable with the one or more analog
signal processors, the control device applying setting
adjustments to the one or more analog signal processors in
accordance with the one or more analog domain control settings
received from the remote device.
3. The audio processing system of claim 2, the control
device comprising a robotic arm.
Appeal 2019-002401
Application 15/257,642

3

Appeal Br. 29 (Claims Appendix).

References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Jubien et al.
(“Jubien”)
US 2006/0152398 A1 July 13, 2006
Barrett US 2017/0269898 A1 Sept. 21, 20172

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Barrett. Final Act. 3–13.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatenable over
Barrett and Jubien. Final Act. 13.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments that Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). At the outset, we note that the anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12–17 and 20 is before us, but not argued by
Appellant in the briefs. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c); MPEP §1205.02; Appeal
Br. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims pro
forma. With respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 6, 7, 9, and 11, we

2 For purposes of the Examiner’s rejections, Barrett’s effective date is March
21, 2016 (the date of its provisional application 16/311,285). Final Act. 2;
Reply Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-002401
Application 15/257,642

4
agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our
own. With respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 3 and 18, and the
obviousness rejection of claim 19, however, we are persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We provide the following to
highlight and address specific arguments.
Claim 3
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Barrett discloses a
control device comprising “a robotic arm,” as recited in claim 3. Appeal Br.
11–13; Reply Br. 7; see also Spec. Fig. 4. Appellant contends the Examiner
has relied on “hypothetical possibilities” in Barrett, rather than any
disclosure of the claimed robotic arm. We are persuaded by Appellant’s
argument.
The Examiner relies on Barrett’s disclosure of “robotic control
hardware” and (“though not depicted”) “mechanical devices, such as levers”
which may manipulate “buttons and switches.” Final Act. 6; see also Barrett
¶¶ 36, 45, Figs. 3, 7. As Appellant argues, however, merely disclosing
“control hardware” and devices such as levers is not the same as a “robotic
arm.” See Spec. ¶ 37, Fig. 4. The Examiner asserts that the “teaching” of a
motor controlled lever satisfies the disputed claim limitation, but the
rejection of claim 3 was anticipation, not obviousness. Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
3. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 6, 7, and 9
Claim 6 recites a “digital audio workstation comprising the digital-to-
analog converter,” and “receiving the digital audio file” from the server
Appeal 2019-002401
Application 15/257,642

5
complex. Appeal Br. 30. Dependent claim 7 adds a “second digital audio
workstation,” and dependent claim 9 recites “concurrent” initiation of the
digital audio file and “conversion” of the analog signal. Id. Appellant
argues that the Examiner fails to find any disclosure of the claimed
workstations in Barrett, and that Barrett’s “real time” processing is not the
same as the “gating” of Appellant’s claims. Appeal Br. 16–21; Reply Br.
12.
As the Examiner finds, however, Barrett discloses a “D/A converter”
implemented by a “machine,” which receives a digital audio file, and an
“A/D converter” which may be implemented by a second machine (or the
same machine). Ans. 5. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the
foregoing converters satisfy the disputed limitations. Moreover, although
Appellant argues Barrett does not disclose “gating,” that limitation is not in
the appealed claims. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Corn Corp., 343 F.3d 1364,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (although we gave claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification, “limitations from the specification
are not to be read into the claims”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 6, 7, and 9. We, therefore, sustain the anticipation rejection of claims
6, 7, and 9.
Claim 11
Dependent claim 11 recites a “loudness level selection tool defining a
loudness level associated with the digital audio file.” Appeal Br. 31
(emphasis added). Appellant argues the Examiner erred in relying on
Barrett’s disclosure of a “vol” control to adjust loudness because, according
to Appellant, that control is associated with analog output of sound rather
Appeal 2019-002401
Application 15/257,642

6
than a “digital audio file.” Appeal Br. 22–23; Reply Br. 12. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
As the Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, Barrett
discloses performing real time digital-to-analog and analog-to-digital
conversion of files, and thus adjustment of the “vol” control results in a
loudness level “associated” with the recited digital audio file. Ans. 6. We
agree with the Examiner’s observation that claim 11 does not require the
recited tool to operate “directly on” the file, but merely to select a level
“associated with” the file. Id.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 11. We, therefore, sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 11.
Claims 18 and 19
Claim 18 recites “transmitting” a message identifying a “mastering
status” of one or more of the digital audio files, and its dependent claim 19
recites assigning further data to a digital audio file. Appeal Br. 32.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Barrett’s disclosure of a
“plugin” satisfies the “mastering status” message recited in claim 18.
Appeal Br. 24–25; Reply Br. 13. We are persuaded by Appellant’s
argument.
The Examiner cites Barrett’s disclosure that a “plugin simply has to
send [user settings] to the audio server for the initial position.” Ans. 6. The
Examiner’s finding, however, does not indicate transmitting any message
identifying “mastering status” of a digital audio file, as recited in claim 18.
The Examiner does not explain, and we do not discern on this record, how a
plugin sending user settings corresponds to the claimed “mastering status” of
a digital audio file.
Appeal 2019-002401
Application 15/257,642

7
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
18. For the same reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claim 19, which includes the same limitation. We, therefore, do
not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 18 and the obviousness
rejection of claim 19.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–17 and 20.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 18, and 19.

SUMMARY DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18, 20 102 Barrett 1, 2, 4–17,
20
3, 18
19 103 Barrett, Jubien 19
Total
Outcome
1, 2, 4–17
20
3, 18, 19

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-IN-PART