Dipanjan Sen et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 202014289522 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/289,522 05/28/2014 Dipanjan Sen 1212-782US01/141541U1 8925 23696 7590 04/30/2020 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 EXAMINER ADESANYA, OLUJIMI A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2020 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): us-docketing@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DIPANJAN SAN AND SANG-UK RYU ________________ Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 11–13, 15–21, 23–27, 29–37, and 39–58, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to the compression and decompression of higher order Ambisonic audio data. Spec. ¶ 4. Claims 1 and 27 illustrate the appealed subject matter and read as follows: 1. A method comprising: obtaining, by an audio decoding device, a bitstream comprising a compressed version of a spatial component of a sound field, the spatial component defined in a spherical harmonic domain and indicative of a shape and a width of a corresponding predominant signal identified in the sound field, the predominant signal also defined in the spherical harmonic domain, and the compressed version of the spatial component is represented in the bitstream using, at least in part, a field specifying a prediction mode used when compressing the spatial component; decompressing, by the audio decoding device, the spatial component in accordance with the prediction mode; rendering, by the audio decoding device, one or more speaker feeds based on the spatial component and the predominant signal; and outputting, by the audio decoding device, the one or more speaker feeds to one or more speakers. 27. A method comprising: performing, by an audio encoding device, a decomposition with respect to a plurality of spherical harmonic coefficients to obtain a spatial component of a sound field represented by the plurality of spherical harmonic coefficients and a corresponding predominant signal, the spatial component and the corresponding predominant signal each defined in a spherical harmonic domain, and the spatial component indicative of a shape and a width of the corresponding predominant signal; Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 3 compressing, by the audio encoding device, the spatial component in accordance with a prediction mode to obtain a compressed version of the spatial component; compressing, by the audio encoding device, the predominant signal to obtain a compressed version of the predominant signal; and generating, by the audio encoding device, a bitstream comprising the compressed version of the spatial component and the compressed version of the predominant signal, wherein the compressed version of the spatial component is represented in the bitstream using, at least in part, a field specifying a prediction mode used when compressing the spatial component. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 3–9, 11–13, 15–21, 23–27, 29–35, 37, 39–45, 47‒50, 52‒54, and 56‒58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bosi et al, “ISO/IEC MPEG-2 Advanced Audio Coding, 1996” (“Bosi”) and Keiler (W0/2012/059385 A1; May 10, 2012). Final Act. 7‒38.2 Claims 36 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bosi, Keiler and Zotter et al, “Energy-Preserving Ambisonic Decoding, 2012” (“Zotter”). Final Act. 38–39. Claims 51 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bosi, Keiler and Noisternig et al, “A 30 Real Time Rendering Engine for Binaural sound Reproduction, 2003” (“Noisternig”). Final Act. 39‒41. 2 All references to the Final Action refer to the Final Action entered on November 24, 2017. Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 4 ANALYSIS Claim 1 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Bosi and Keiler. See Appeal Br. 9–17. In particular, Appellant argues Keiler fails to teach the predominant signal and the spatial component are both defined in the Spherical Harmonic Domain. See id. at 10–12. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Keiler teaches directional information is stored with a single source mono pulse-code-modulated (PCM) signal. Ans. 40 (citing Keiler 3:20‒22, 4:17‒20, 10:15‒17). The PCM signal, directional signals, and directional information can be encoded using higher order Ambisonic (HOA) coefficients. See id. (citing Keiler 3:20–22, 4:16–20). Per the Specification, HOA signals and spherical harmonic coefficients (SHC) are identical representations of a three-dimensional soundfield. See Spec. ¶ 3. Appellant also argues the Examiner erred because Keiler teaches away from the directional parameters being defined in the Spherical Harmonic Domain. In particular, Appellant argues Keiler discusses using directional parameters for encoding a PCM signal. See Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Keiler teaches the directional parameters being encoded into an Ambisonic signal (i.e., using SHC). See Ans. 40–41 (citing Keiler, 10:9–17). A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 5 otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”). Keiler does not criticize, discredit or discourage the directional parameters being encoded as Ambisonic coefficients, but rather, discloses they be encoded as such. Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in finding Keiler teaches mono signals being defined by Ambisonic coefficients. In particular, Appellant argues Keiler teaches transforming sound pressure to Ambisonic coefficients, but does not teach that either a mono signal or directional information are defined using Ambisonic coefficients. See Appeal Br. 11 (citing Keiler 12:10‒21). Appellant argues the mono signal is alternative to, or used in conjunction with, HOA signals, and must be distinct from the Ambisonic coefficients. See id. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Keiler teaches separately encoding a mono signal and directional information into spherical harmonic coefficients. See Ans. 41‒42 (citing Kieler 10:6–17). Additionally, Keiler teaches mono signals and directional signals can be described by Ambisonic coefficients. See Keiler, 4:5‒20. Appellant also argues the Examiner erred because spherical coordinates cannot be considered to teach a relationship to the Spherical Harmonic Domain. In particular, Appellant argues Keiler only defines spherical coordinates in the spatial domain with reference to actual angles and a radius. See Appeal Br. 11‒12. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Keiler teaches the directional information, although represented in the spatial domain, is encoded into Ambisonic signals. See Ans. 42 (citing Keiler, 3:20–22, 10: 9–17). Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 6 Appellant also argues the Examiner erred because there is no explanation as to how Keiler explains how a standard mathematical formula for representing a sound pressure using Ambisonic coefficients relates to the mono signal or the directional information. More particularly, Appellant argues Keiler teaches the mono signal is an alternative to or used in conjunction with HOA coefficients. See Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 9‒10. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Keiler teaches the PCM signal, while being used in conjunction with the direction information, is encoded into Ambisonic signals. See Ans. 44. Appellant also argues the Examiner erred by failing to consider the claims as a whole. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner’s interpretation of Keiler effectively requires the Ambisonic signal to include both the predominant signal and the spatial component. See Appeal Br. 13. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Keiler teaches transforming a PCM signal into the Spherical Harmonic Domain, and further, transforming encoded directional information into separate spherical harmonic coefficients. See Ans. 44‒45 (citing Keiler, 10:15–17). Appellant also argues the Examiner erred by using a claim construction that is contrary to the Applicant’s Specification. In particular, Appellant argues claim 1 requires two separate components, the spatial component and the predominant audio signal, while the Examiner incorrectly conflates the spatial component and the predominant audio signal as being different ways of referring to the same Ambisonics signal. See Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant argues the Specification explains that SHC do Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 7 not include the predominant signal. See Reply Br. 5–6, 10–11 (citing Spec. ¶ 133). Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Keiler teaches a separate PCM signal and direction signal, each of which is encoded into the bitstream. See Ans. 46–47 (citing Keiler, 4:17–20; 10:15–17). Further, the Examiner finds the Specification teaches the predominant signal is a PCM signal. See Ans. 38. The Examiner also finds the Specification teaches the formation of the SHC for the spatial component. See Ans. 38. Finally, the Examiner finds Keiler teaches the formation of SHC for both spatial information and a predominant signal. See Ans. 38, 45 (citing Keiler, 3:20‒22, 10:15‒17). Finally, Appellant argues the Examiner erred because an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Bosi and Keiler. In particular, Appellant argues the motivation to combine the references asserted by the Examiner lacks a relationship to the identified deficiencies in Bosi, and further, the motivation is conclusory and provides no benefit to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds the use of Ambisonics expands on conventional monophony, stereophony, and quadrophonics by transmitting sound fields in a full- spherical directional reproduction. See Ans. 49. The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would modify Bosi, which transmits sound using stereophony, to transmit a full-spherical directional reproduction. Id. The Examiner finds Keiler’s teachings solve the limitations of the conventional system of Bosi by providing an Ambisonics file format that is capable of storing two or more sound fields at once. See id. at 51. Appellant has not persuasively identified error in the Examiner’s findings. Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 8 For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 13, 25, and 26, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 17–18. We also sustain the rejection of claims 51 and 55, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. See id. at 27. Claim 27 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 27 as unpatentable over Bosi and Keiler. See Appeal Br. 19–26; Reply Br. 13‒14. In particular, Appellant argues Keiler fails to teach the Ambisonics signal are decomposed into the distinct components of a spatial component and a predominant audio signal. See Appeal Br. 19–20. Appellant further asserts Keiler can only be interpreted such that the spatial component of the sound field and the predominant audio signal are encoded into a single Ambisonic signal. See id. at 21. Finally, Appellant argues no unit shown in FIG. 3 of Keiler performs decomposition resulting in a spatial component and a corresponding predominant signal. Id. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds Keiler teaches using an eigenmike to capture HOA coefficients, wherein the captured input results in a decomposed spatial component and a PCM signal in a similar manner to the originally filed Specification. See Ans. 52 (citing Keiler, 3:11‒22; 52:23‒26). Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, FIG. 3 of Keiler teaches a decomposition of two separate HOA signals by an audio encoding device. See Final Act. 22‒23; Ans. 52‒53. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 27. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 9 independent claims 37, 47, and 48, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 22–24. Claims 3–9, 11, 15–21, 23, 49, 50, 52–54, and 56–58 Claim 52 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising reconstructing, by the audio decoding device, higher order ambisonic (HOA) coefficients based on the spatial component, wherein rendering the one or more speaker feeds comprises rendering the one or more speaker feeds based on the HOA coefficients.” Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 52 because Keiler fails to teach “reconstructing higher order ambisonic (HOA) coefficients based on the spatial component.” See Appeal Br. 24–25. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Keiler teaches transmitting spherical harmonic coefficients (An m(t), Bn m(t), Cn m(t)) from an encoder to a decoder, where the spherical harmonic coefficients are obtained from spatial component (Direction, fig. 3), and where the spatial component and the SHC are subsequently decoded by the decoder. See Ans. 54. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 52. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3–9, 11, 15–21, 23, 49, 50, 53, 54, and 56–58, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 24–25. Claims 12 and 24 Claim 12 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the spatial component and the predominant signal is generated by performing a decomposition with respect to higher-order ambisonic audio data.” Appellant argues the Examiner erred for reasons similar to those presented with respect to claim 27, and further, Appellant argues Keiler teaches away Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 10 from the recitation of claim 12 because Keiler stores HOA audio data itself, not a decomposition thereof. See Appeal Br. 25–26. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. First, Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 27 are not persuasive for the reasons noted above. Second, a teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”). Appellant has identified nothing in Keiler which can be construed as criticizing, discrediting or discouraging one of ordinary skill in the art from performing a decomposition of higher-order Ambisonic data. Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Keiler teaches the use of eigenmikes for capturing HOA sound signals which result in decomposition into spatial components and a predominant signal. See Ans. 55–56 (citing Keiler, FIG. 3). For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 12. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 24, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 25–26. Claims 36 and 46 Claim 36 recites “[t]he method of claim 27, wherein the decomposition comprises a singular value decomposition.” Appellant argues the Examiner erred because the combination of Bosi, Keiler and Zotter fails to provide an explanation how the application of singular value decomposition (“SVD”) in Zotter to the audio encoding device in Keiler solves a decoding problem. See Appeal Br. 26‒27. Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 11 The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Zotter teaches it is well-known to use SVD to enable mode matching at the decoder. See Final Act. 39 (citing Zotter § 2.2). Further, the Examiner finds Zotter teaches decoder design approach, known as mode-matching, which aims at matching the spherical harmonic modes excited by the loudspeaker signals with the modes of the Ambisonic sound field decomposition. See Ans. 57 (citing Zotter 37). This decoder matches the decomposition performed during Ambisonic soundfield decomposition when provided to encoding device established by the teachings of Bosi and Keiler. See id. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 36. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 46, which Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 26–27. Appeal 2018-008871 Application 14/289,522 12 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) /Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–9, 11–13, 15– 21, 23–27, 29–35, 37, 39–45, 47–50, 52–54, 56–58 103 Bosi, Keiler 1, 3–9, 11–13, 15–21, 23–27, 29–35, 37, 39–45, 47–50, 52–54, 56–58 36, 46 103 Bosi, Keiler, Zotter 36, 46 51, 55 103 Bosi, Keiler, Noisternig 51, 55 Overall Outcome 1, 3–9, 11–13, 15–21, 23–27, 29–37, 39–58 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation