Appeal No. 2003-2116
Application No. 09/306,954
an audio signal. Independent claims 11 and 17 contain similar
recitations. The examiner (see page 5 in the answer) concedes
that Stevenson does not respond to these claim limitations. To
overcome this deficiency, the examiner turns to Tatemi.
It is not disputed that Tatemi discloses an audio system for
a theater wherein the distances between one or more movable sound
sources on a stage and a plurality of stationary speakers is
sensed and utilized to adjust the timing of the speaker outputs
so as to enable spectators to readily recognize the relative
positions of the sound sources.
In proposing to combine Stevenson and Tatemi to reject
independent claims 1, 11 and 17, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious in view of Tatemi “to have modified
Stevenson to include modifying the timing of the audio signals
from the speakers in addition to the volume or intensity and
balance so as to optimize the ambiance of the audio sound system
and the directional audio quality” (answer, pages 5 and 6). The
examiner adds that
with respect to Tatemi et al, it is irrelevant whether
the source or the listener is the one moving. . . .
[T]here is no difference, conceptually, in the timing
of signals based upon a movement of a source or a
movement of a listener. What is important is the fact
that the timing of audio receiving apparatuses or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007