Ex Parte Sarkar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

13584460 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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.
13/584,460 08/13/2012 Shantanu Sarkar 01-7742/US 1014
32681 7590 01/29/2018
PLANTRONICS, INC.
IP Department/Legal
345 ENCINAL STREET
P.O. BOX 635
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-0635
EXAMINER
SAINT CYR, LEONARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2018 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):
patents @ plantronic s. com
francois.devilliers@plantronics.com
neely. frazier @ plan tronics. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHANTANU SARKAR, CARY BRAN,
JOE BURTON, and JOSEPH STACHULA
Appeal 2016-005241
Application 13/584,460
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Introduction
In a Request for Rehearing filed May 31, 2017 (“Request,” “Req.”),
Appellants request rehearing of the Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (“Board”) mailed April 3, 2017 (“Decision”), in which we affirmed
the final rejection of Claims 1—22 and 24—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Morel et al., US 2013/0185559
Al, July 18, 2013, “Morel”; Cohen et al., US 2011/0258689 Al, Oct. 20,
2011, “Cohen”; and Cannon et al., US 2002/0090912 Al, July 11, 2002,
“Cannon.”
The Request alleges that the Board misunderstood and misconstrued
Appeal 2016-005241
Application 13/584,460
Appellants’arguments. Req. 1. We disagree.
ANALYSIS
Claims \-A, 7-15,20-22, and 24—26
The rejection of Claims 1—19 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Morel, Cannon, and Cohen was affirmed and the rejection of
Claims 20—22 and 24—26 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Morel and Cohen was affirmed. Decision 6. Appellants herein argue
Claims 1—4, 7—15, 20-22, and 24—26 solely over the teachings of Morel. See
Req. 1—3.
Generating a pairing code at the second device from user input.
Claims 1, 10, 16, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 recites, inter alia,
“transmitting the first code from the first device to the second device to be
compared to a second code, the second code generated at the second device
from the user voice input received simultaneously at the first microphone of
the first device and at the second microphone of the second device.”
Appellants contend, contrary to the Panel’s finding, that Morel fails to
teach generating the second code at the second device, much less generating
the second code at the second device from user input. Req. 2 (citing
Decision 4). Rather, Appellants read Morel as teaching:
receiving user input in the first mobile device entering a pairing
code, sending the pairing code to the second mobile device via
the Wi-Fi hot spot, receiving indication from the second mobile
computing device that the first mobile computing device and
the second mobile communication device are paired.
Id. (citing Morel 1 8).
In our Decision we agreed with the Examiner’s finding that this
limitation is taught by a combination of Morel and Cohen. Decision 4. We
2
Appeal 2016-005241
Application 13/584,460
found Morel teaches “generating a pairing code at the second device,” citing
paragraph 8 as support. Appellants contend that paragraph, by itself, does
not disclose the disputed limitation. However, Appellants’ arguments are
not persuasive because additional portions of Morel were cited by the
Examiner, and relied upon by us, to determine the disclosure in paragraph 8
does indeed teach or at least suggest, generating a pairing code at the second
device. In particular, Morel discloses: “the second device can generate a
pairing code.” Morel 140 (cited by the Examiner; see Final Act. 3). The
Examiner finds Cohen teaches that each of the first and second devices
contain logic to recognize pairing sounds and that certain embodiments may
require user input to one or both devices. Final Act. 3 (citing Cohen || 473—
480).
The Examiner’s rejection is founded on a combination of Morel and
Cohen. However, Appellants attempt to distinguish over only the teachings
of Morel. See Req. 1—3. “[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations
of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); see In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are not persuaded
that we misapprehended Appellants’ arguments.
Additionally, we note Appellants’ argument that Morel paragraph 126 was
not cited until our Decision is not persuasive as the Examiner relied on the
specific language of paragraph 126, which although not cited properly, was
easily identified with a quick search of the Morel patent. See Decision 4
(“Morel further states ‘input from the user can be received in any form,
including acoustic, speech, or tactile input.’ Ans. 11—12 (quoting Morel 1
3
Appeal 2016-005241
Application 13/584,460
126).”
Regardless, paragraph 126 was merely relied on for the content of the
user input.
Claims 5 and 6
Appellants contend Claim 6, in conjunction with Claim 5, recites the
method of claim 1, further comprising “transmitting a start voice receive
signal to the second device operable to enable the second device to receive
the user voice input, wherein the start voice receive signal is an audio signal
output at a first device speaker.'1'’ Req. 3.
Appellants argue Cohen teaches the user may input a “secret sound”
with the pairing sound to initiate the pairing process. Req. 4 (citing Cohen,
1497). However, Appellants argue Cohen fails to teach the pairing sound
and the “secret sound” are output from a speaker and transmitted to the
second device. Req. 5 (citing Cohen 1497).
The Examiner finds the Morel-Cannon-Cohen combination teaches
the disputed limitation. Final Act. 10. Specifically, the Examiner finds
Cohen teaches the start voice receive signal is an audio signal output at a
first device speaker. Id. (citing Cohen H 218 and 224). Specifically, Cohen
teaches the speaker may be used for audible information (a “paring sound”)
conveyed from the device (Cohen || 218, 473). The Examiner further finds
the speakers of both devices are used to communicate information. Ans. 13
(citing Cohen || 224 and 497). Cohen teaches both devices include logic to
recognize pairing sounds (1474; Final Act. 4) and speakers to transmit to the
other device (1224). Thus, we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled
artisan would not understand Cohen to teach an audio signal output at a first
4
Appeal 2016-005241
Application 13/584,460
device speaker is transmitted to a second device operable to receive the user
voice input.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error.
Claims 16-19
Appellants contend “the second authentication code generated from
the user voice input utilized to generate the first authentication code,” as
recited in Claim 16, is not taught and was not discussed in the Decision.
Req. 6—8.
Our Decision noted that Appellants contested this and commensurate
limitations in the contexts of independent Claims 1, 10, 16, and 20.
Decision 3. We discussed this limitation in the context of Claim 1. See
Decision 3^4. In the context of Claim 16, we cited our prior discussion of
the limitations of Claim 1. See Decision 6.
DECISION
Based on the record before us now, and in the original appeal, we are
still of the view that the rejection of Claims 1—22 and 24—26 should be
sustained.
We have granted the Request to the extent that we have reconsidered
our decision of April 3, 2017, but we deny the request with respect to
making any changes therein.
5
Appeal 2016-005241
Application 13/584,460
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(b): No time period for taking any subsequent
action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
REHEARING DENIED
6