Ex Parte Sen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2018

14663225 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/663,225 03/19/2015
15150 7590 12/17/2018
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dipanjan Sen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1212-813US01/l 43323 9931
EXAMINER
HUBER, PAUL W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2018 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIP ANJAN SEN and NILS GUNTHER PETERS
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-34, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed invention relates to techniques "for inserting
audio channels into descriptions of soundfields" and, more specifically,
"insert[ing] the audio channel at a spatial location within the soundfield such
that the audio channel is able to be extracted from the soundfield." Spec.
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
Abstract. Claims 1, 10, 19, and 25 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A device comprising:
one or more processors configured to obtain an augmented
higher-order ambisonic representation of a soundfield that
includes an audio channel separate from the soundfield, and
extract the audio channel from a spatial location within the
augmented higher-order ambisonic representation of the
soundfield for playback by an audio playback system; and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors, and
configured to store the audio channel.
REJECTION
Claims 1-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
ineligible subject matter. Non-Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellants made.
Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
Appellants assert claims 10, 19, and 25 are each argued
independently, but Appellants' only argued bases for eligibility are that
"[t ]he arguments made above with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim[ s]
10," 19, and 25. Appeal Br. 11-12. With respect to dependent claims 3-9,
12-18, 23, 24, 29, and 30, Appellants merely argue the Examiner failed to
present a prima facie case of ineligibility "as outlined above with respect to
claim 1." Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 6. Because Appellants' "separate"
arguments do not identify a separate basis for eligibility, we select
independent claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, 23-25, 29,
2
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
and 30, and address Appellants' argument with respect to claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants present additional arguments regarding claims 2, 11, 20-
22, 26-28, and 31-34 that the claims add significantly more to the abstract
idea and the Examiner failed to present a prima facie case. Appeal Br. 13-
21; Reply Br. 5-8. Accordingly, we first address Appellants' argument
about the Examiner's burden, then we address all claims (i.e., claims 1-34)
as a group with respect to the first step of the Alice analysis, and, finally, we
address Appellants' arguments regarding the second step of the Alice
analysis (i.e., whether the claims recite significantly more than the abstract
idea), including Appellants' additional arguments regarding claims 2, 11,
20-22, 26-28, and 31-34.
PRIMA F ACIE CASE
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of the dependent claims
does not establish a prima facie case of ineligibility because the Examiner
presents only a vague assertion that the dependent claims do not add
significantly more to the abstract idea. App. Br. 13-21; Reply Br. 3, 6-8.
We disagree.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly noted that "the prima facie case is
merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of
production." Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The court has, thus,
held that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) carries its
procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection
satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132 by notifying the applicant of
the reasons for rejection, "together with such information and references as
3
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of
[the] application." See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, all that is required of the Office is that it set forth the statutory basis of
the rejection, and the reference or references relied on, in a sufficiently
articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of
§ 132. Id.; see also Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(Section 132 "is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it
prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds
for rejection.").
The Examiner's rejection, as discussed further below, presents a
prima facie case by identifying that all of Appellants' claims are directed to
particular concepts and explains the additional limitations in the dependent
claims do not add significantly more to "the abstract idea because they
represent limitations which can be performed in the human mind ... and the
claim language is of such generality that it does not provide significantly
more than the abstract idea of extracting an audio channel from a signal."
See Non-Final Act. 2; Reply Br. 2-3. Thus, the Examiner: set forth the
statutory basis for the rejection, namely 35 U.S.C. § 101; concluded that the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to § 101, namely an
abstract idea; and, contrary to Appellants' contention, explained and
analyzed the rejection in sufficient detail to permit Appellants to respond
meaningfully. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1362. In other words, the rejection
apprised Appellants of the rejection such that Appellants were able to argue
against the rejection. See App. Br. 5-21; Reply Br. 3-8.
The dependent claims describe various limitations regarding the
content of the data (see, e.g., claim 2, which further limits the shape of the
4
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
soundfield and the location within that soundfield where the audio channel is
located) and additional data extracted (see, e.g., claims 5-7), which do not
patentably transform the abstract idea. Cf Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842
F.3d 1229, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("These claims depend from independent
claims which were found to be directed to unpatentable subject matter, as
discussed above. Merely appending this preexisting practice to those
independent claims does not make them patentable. It is an insignificant
post-solution activity."). Also, where all claims are directed to the same
abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents ... [is]
unnecessary." Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Examiner notified Appellants of the reasons for the rejection
"together with such information and references as may be useful in judging
of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application."
35 U.S.C. § 132. In doing so, the Examiner set forth a prima facie case of
ineligibility.
STEP ONE OF ALICE FRAMEWORK
In step one of the Alice analysis, we "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to" a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea.
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354--55 (2014).
"Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law
that we review de novo." SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'! Trade Comm 'n, 601 F.3d
1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The Examiner concludes the claims are directed to extracting an audio
channel from, or inserting and audio channel into, a representation of a
soundfield, which "is nothing more than a mathematical procedure for
5
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
converting one form of nmnerical representation to another." Non-Final
Act. 2; Ans. 2. The Examiner finds Appellants' argument that the claims are
not directed to an abstract idea unpersuasive because Appellants only
support the argument with references to the Specification and fail to tie the
argument to the recited limitations. Ans. 2. The Examiner explains that the
recited limitations do not improve a technological field and could be
performed using pen and paper. Ans. 2; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding the claims were
directed to "a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied
in the self-referential table" because the claims were "not simply directed to
any form of storing tabular data, but instead are specifically directed to a
self-referential table for a computer database" that functions differently than
conventional databases.).
Appellants argue the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and the
Examiner has not demonstrated Appellants' claims are similar to claims
found ineligible by the courts. Appeal Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 3--4.
Specifically, Appellants argue claim 1 is not merely directed to a
mathematical conversion, but a particular conversion used for a particular
purpose. Appeal Br. 7 ("such conversion occurs with respect to a higher-
order ambisonic representation of a soundfield set in the context of audio
coding"). Appellants also argue claim 1 recites "one or more processors and
a memory, and therefore is not a general process capable of being performed
in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper." Reply Br. 4.
Appellants argue, like the claims in Enfzsh, DDR, and McRO, the
Examiner oversimplified the claims, which are directed to "techniques and
improvements in the field of audio coding and to the improvement of the
6
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
operation of audio coders" and do not preempt all ways of coding higher-
order ambisonic audio representations of soundfields Appeal Br. 7-8 ( citing
Enfzsh, 822 F.3d 1327; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d
1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Appellants point to two paragraphs in the
Specification describing alleged technological improvements to audio
coding devices. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Spec. ,r,r 41--42). Appellants argue that
the Federal Circuit "relied on the specification for identifying such a
technological improvement" and, therefore, "whether Appellant[s'] claims
do or do not explicitly specify a technological improvement is irrelevant in
determining whether Appellant[s'] claims are directed to patent eligible
subject matter." Appeal Br. 10 (citing Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1337). Appellants
argue their Specification describes an alleged improvement to audio coding
devices allowing the addition of an audio channel without increasing
bandwidth requirements and flexible control of adjusting volume or
selecting between different languages. Appeal Br. 10.
While we do not necessarily disagree with the Examiner's conclusion,
we note there are various ways to analogize appealed claims to claims that
have been previously-determined as being directed to an abstract idea. See
Apple, 842 F.3d at 1240--41 (noting that an abstract idea can generally be
described at different levels of abstraction). As mentioned above, we review
this rejection de nova. Instead of using a definition of an abstract idea, "the
decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which
a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases were
about, and which way they were decided." Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Elec. Power
7
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also
Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1334 (finding "both [the Federal Circuit] and the
Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those
claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.").
We agree with the Examiner's conclusions because claim 1 focuses on
obtaining data (i.e., a particular soundfield), extracting information (i.e., the
audio channel) from that data, and storing the extracted information. Claim
1 is similar to the claims the Federal Circuit found ineligible in Content
Extraction, which recited steps of "receiving output," "recognizing portions
of' the data the output represents, and "storing information from said
portions." Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345. The Federal Circuit stated
the claims were directed to the abstract idea of collecting data, recognizing
certain data within the collected data set, and storing the recognized data in a
memory. Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347. Although claim 1 recites
"one or more processors configured to obtain" the data and extract the
information and "a memory" to store the extracted information, these
elements do not change the character of claim 1 as a whole from being
directed to an abstract idea. Notably, the processor and memory are
generically recited and Appellants do not assert these components are
anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional components
performing their ordinary functions (i.e., a processor obtaining and
extracting data and a memory storing data).
The Federal Circuit also has concluded that similar concepts were
directed to abstract ideas. Specifically, in Electric Power, the Federal
Circuit concluded claims reciting a method of collecting data from various
sources, "detecting and analyzing events" by identifying information in the
8
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
received data, reporting the event analysis results and visualizations of
measurements, aggregating the event analysis information, and providing a
composite indicator were directed to an abstract idea because the claims
were directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis." Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351-53;
see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F .3d
1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection,
storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"); SAP Am.,
Inc. v. InvestPIC, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("merely
presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing
information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and
analysis") ( citation omitted).
Moreover, limiting the particular data being analyzed does not change
the character of the claim. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (stating that
"collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which
does not change its character as information)" is treated as "within the realm
of abstract ideas"). Thus, the fact that the obtained data is "an augmented
higher-order ambisonic representation of a soundfield that includes an audio
channel separate from the soundfield" and the extracted information is the
"audio channel" does not change the character of claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner that Appellants have not tied their
identification of alleged technological improvements to audio coding
devices to the limitations recited in claim 1. Specifically, as discussed
above, claim 1 merely involves "obtaining" data, "extracting" certain
information from that data, and "storing" the extracted information. To the
extent Appellants' Specification may provide a new solution to a
9
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
technological problem, these arguments do not demonstrate that claim 1
recites limitations commensurate with the alleged technological
improvement.
Appellants' mischaracterize the Federal Circuit's reliance on the
Specification in that case. Compare Appeal Br. 10 (arguing the Federal
Circuit's reliance on the Specification in Enfzsh stands for the proposition
that the claims do not need to specify a technological improvement) with
Appeal Br. 8 (stating that Enfzsh requires us to determine subject matter
eligibility as "defined by what the claims actually recite as understood in
view of the specification" (italics added)). Notably, in the portion of the
decision that Appellants quote, the Federal Circuit determined that their
"conclusion that the claims are directed to an improvement of an existing
technology is bolstered by the specification's teachings that the claimed
invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases." Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1337 (emphasis added). Thus, the Federal Circuit looked to the
Specification to bolster their conclusion that the claims recited an
improvement. Here, Appellants' claims do not recite the alleged
improvements identified in Appellants' Specification.
For the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that representative
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, we tum to step 2 of the Alice
analysis.
STEP Two OF ALICE FRAMEWORK
In step two of our Alice analysis, we determine whether the additional
limitations, when considered both "individually and 'as an ordered
combination"' contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the
10
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
claimed "abstract idea" into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355-58. As mentioned above, we review this rejection de nova.
The Examiner finds the data obtaining and storing steps are well-
understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution data gathering activities
that merely recite a processor and memory performing generic obtaining and
storing steps, respectively, at a high level of generality. Non-Final Act. 2;
Ans. 2-3. Thus, the Examiner concludes the additional elements, taken
individually or in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract
idea. Non-Final Act. 2; Ans. 2-3. The Examiner also concludes the
dependent claims fail to add significantly more to "the abstract idea because
they represent limitations which can be performed in the human mind or by
a human using a pen and paper, and the claim language is" recited at a high
level of generality. Ans. 3.
Representative Claim 1
Appellants argue claim 1 is directed to more than an abstract idea
because claim 1 is "rooted in the computer technology of encoding and
decoding of higher order ambisonics (HOA) coefficients representative of a
soundfield" and solves "a problem faced by underlying computer
technology." Appeal Br. 10 (citing DDR, 773 F.3d. at 1245); Reply Br. 4.
Appellants argue paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Specification support
Appellants' position that "the claimed invention [is] directed to substantially
more than the abstract idea of mathematical relationships/formulas." Appeal
Br. 11 ( emphasis added).
Appellants' argument that claim 1 is similar to the eligible claims in
DDR is unavailing. The Federal Circuit determined the claims in DDR
included significantly more than the abstract idea under step two of Alice
11
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
because "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology
in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks" rather than "merely recit[ing] the performance of some business
practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to
perform it on the Internet." DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257.
As we noted above, Appellants' argument regarding the alleged
improvements disclosed in their Specification do not demonstrate that claim
1 recites limitations commensurate with the alleged technological
improvement. Similar to the claims in Content Extraction, claim 1 is
"drawn to the basic concept [(i.e., abstract idea)] of data recognition and
storage." Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347. Unlike the claims in DDR,
Appellants have not demonstrated, nor do Appellants' claims address,
changing a conventional way in which known technology functions. See
DDR, 773 F.3d 1245. Rather, obtaining data and extracting information
from the obtained data using one or more generically recited processors then
storing the extracted information in a generically recited memory merely
involves data manipulation and, contrary to Appellants' assertion, does not
improve a technical field.
Moreover, Appellants' arguments focus on the functions that either
are not recited at all in claim 1 or are part of the abstract idea itself of
obtaining data, extracting information from the data, and storing the
extracted information. Appellants fail to identify limitations that are in
addition to the recited abstract idea or why the limitations add significantly
more.
An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of
nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd.
12
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2355 ( explaining that, after determining a claim is directed to a
judicial exception, "we then ask, '[w]hat else is there in the claims before
us?"' (emphasis added, brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at
78)). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or
combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to the judicial
exception and sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to
significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73); see BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons,
Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Supreme
Court in Alice "only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the
invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-
understood, routine and conventional," (emphasis added)).
On the other hand, "[i]f a claim's only 'inventive concept' is the
application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood
techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible
application of an abstract idea." BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290-91 ( citing
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). "[I]t is
irrelevant whether [the claimed abstract idea] may have been non-routine or
unconventional as a factual matter ... narrowing or reformulating an
abstract idea does not add 'significantly more' to it." BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at
1291.
The recited functions (i.e., the obtaining, extracting, and storing steps)
are part of the abstract idea. Therefore, the question is whether there are
additional elements recited in the claims that add significantly more to the
abstract idea. Claim 1 recites "one or more processors" and a "memory."
13
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
However, as stated by the Examiner, these elements are generally and
generically recited, and Appellants' Specification suggests that these are
well-known elements being used as intended and may be comprised of
software, hardware, or a combination of software and hardware. See
Spec. ,r,r 169--174. In other words, Appellants' claims invoke computers
merely as tools to obtain, extract, and store information in a particular way.
See BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1286.
The Examiner finds the obtaining and storing data steps are not part of
the abstract idea. Non-Final Act. 2. In view of the Examiner's
characterization of the abstract idea, we do not disagree. However, because
we find Appellants' claims most similar to the claims in Content Extraction,
the obtaining and storing data steps are a part of the abstract idea to which
claim 1 is directed. See Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348; Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1353. Nevertheless, to the extent the obtaining and storing steps
are elements in addition to the abstract idea, we agree with the Examiner that
such steps are insignificant extra-solution activity because those steps
merely are necessary pre-solution steps to obtain data on which to perform
the recited extraction and post-solution steps to store the result.
Thus, representative claim 1 's limitations, considered both
individually and together, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea
and, therefore, do not render the subject matter patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 11, 20-22, 26-28, and 31-34
The Examiner determines the additional limitations in the dependent
claims do not add significantly more to "the abstract idea because they
represent limitations which can be performed in the human mind ... and the
claim language is of such generality that it does not provide significantly
14
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
more than the abstract idea of extracting an audio channel from a signal."
Ans. 2-3; see Non-Final Act. 2.
Appellants argue that, in addition to the reasons asserted with respect
to the independent claims from which they depend, dependent claims 2, 11,
20-22, 26-28, and 31-34 recite additional limitations that add significantly
more to the abstract idea. Appellants argue claims 2, 11, 20, and 26 recite
"additional technological improvements to the functioning of audio coders"
that are "necessarily rooted in audio coding technology to overcome a
problem arising in audio coding technology" by leveraging "the lack of 3D
audio speaker setups by most end-users to further improve on inserting the
separate audio channel without impacting the quality during playback."
Appeal Br. 13 (citing Spec. ,r,r 63, 66). Similarly, Appellants argue claims
21 and 27 recite "additional technological improvements" that are
"necessarily rooted in audio coding technology" by leveraging "the inability
of the human auditory system to perceive quieter noises when a louder noise
is nearby," which Appellants argue the Specification refers to as "spatial
masking," or "when a sound is made inaudible by a noise or unwanted sound
of the same duration as the original sound," which Appellants argue the
Specification refers to as "simultaneous masking." Appeal Br. 14--15 ( citing
Spec. ,r 82).
Appellants argue claims 22 and 28 recite "subject matter directed to
significantly more than 'a mathematical procedure for converting one form
of numerical representation to another,"' because claim 22's subject matter
"is more than a mathematical conversion of P Am(8, cp) to P(8, cp)." Appeal
Br. 16. Appellants similarly argue claims 31-34 recite more than the
mathematical conversion, asserting these claims are directed to substantially
15
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
more than the abstract idea "especially considering the rendering to
loudspeaker feeds" limitations, the loudspeakers configured to reproduce the
soundfield, the microphone, and the mixing steps in these claims. Appeal
Br. 17-21.
We disagree with Appellants. As discussed above, the dependent
claims describe various limitations regarding the content of the data (see,
e.g., claim 2, which further limits the shape of the soundfield and the
location within that soundfield where the audio channel is located) and
additional data extracted (see, e.g., claims 5-7), which do not patentably
transform the abstract idea. Cf Apple, 842 F.3d at 1244 ("These claims
depend from independent claims which were found to be directed to
unpatentable subject matter, as discussed above. Merely appending this
preexisting practice to those independent claims does not make them
patentable. It is an insignificant post-solution activity.").
Appellants' argument regarding the dependent claims is unpersuasive
because Appellants do not sufficiently explain how or why the particular
limitations in any of the dependent claims adds significantly more to the
abstract idea. Instead, with respect to claims 2, 11, 20, 21, 26, and 27,
Appellants assert the dependent claims recite additional elements that add
significantly more to the judicial exception because the limitations add
technological improvements to audio coding that are necessarily rooted, and
overcome problems arising, in audio coding technology. Appeal Br. 13-21.
More specifically, Appellants argue these claims leverage knowledge
regarding typical end-user speaker setups and human haring capabilities.
These general assertions are insufficient to persuasively explain why any
particular limitation recited in the dependent claims adds an inventive
16
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
concept to the abstract idea and, moreover, are not commensurate with the
scope of the argued claims.
Claims 2, 11, 20, and 26 merely narrow the abstract idea to identify a
"shape" of a soundfield and a location within the soundfield where the audio
channel is located. These limitations merely narrow the particular content of
the obtained representation of a soundfield. See Elec. Power, 830 F .3d at
1353 (limiting the particular content collected and analyzed "does not
change its character as information," and such collection and analysis is
treated as "within the realm of abstract ideas."). Similarly, claims 21 and 27,
also narrow the claims from which they depend by reciting additional data
receipt and analysis steps, which would merely narrow the abstract idea. See
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1351-53 ( claims reciting "collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis" are
directed to an abstract idea).
With respect to claims 22 and 28, Appellants merely reproduce the
claim language and state that "[ c ]ertainly, the above subject matter of claim
22 is more than a mathematical conversion ... as alleged by the Office
Action" and, therefore, the claims are "directed to substantially more than
the abstract concept." Appeal Br. 16. First, merely stating that the subject
matter recites more than the abstract idea without further explanation is
insufficient to identify error. Moreover, the additional limitations in claims
22 and 28 appear to simply provide some detail on the type of
transformation calculations involved in the process and further defining into
which domain the audio channel is inserted. These additional limitations
appear to merely add additional details regarding the data manipulation
steps. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1351-53.
17
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
Regarding claims 31-34, Appellants point to the generically recited
physical components as adding significantly more. Appeal Br. 17-21.
Specifically, Appellants argue these claims add significantly more to the
abstract idea because: ( 1) claim 31 recites loudspeakers and the rendering
thereto; (2) claim 32 recites rendering loudspeaker feeds, mixing the audio
channel with the loudspeaker feeds, and reproducing the soundfield;
(3) claim 33 recites a microphone; and ( 4) claim 34 recites an audio
encoding device and a microphone. Appeal Br. 17-21.
Regarding the loudspeakers, microphone, and audio encoding device,
the claims do not recite any features indicating that these components are
anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional elements.
Appellants' claims merely recite these generic components at a high level of
generality and do not assert the components are unconventional. See
Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 ("There is no 'inventive concept' in
CET's use of a generic scanner and computer to perform well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry. See Alice,
134 S.Ct. at 2359."). Limiting the abstract idea of obtaining, recognizing,
extracting, and storing data, at most, "limit[ s] the abstract idea ... to a
particular technological environment," which "has been held insufficient to
save a claim in this context." Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (citing
Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
715-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,
1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Appellants have not sufficiently explained why the additional
rendering, mixing, and reproducing audio adds significantly to the abstract
idea. These steps appear to be further data manipulation steps that are part
18
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
of the abstract idea. Moreover, the claims recite these steps at a high level of
generality. The claims are directed to result of combining two data sets,
which does not render the subject matter eligible. The Federal Circuit's
analysis in Digitech is instructive:
The above claim recites a process of taking two data sets and
combining them . . . by taking existing information . . . and
organizing this information into a new form. . .. a process that
employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing
information to generate additional information is not patent
eligible. "If a claim is directed essentially to a method of
calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is
for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory."
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elec.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Summary of Analysis under Step Two of Alice
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded Appellants'
claims do not include an inventive concept because the claims do not recite
significantly more than the abstract idea.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we conclude Appellants' claims are directed to
merely the abstract idea of obtaining, extracting, and storing data, without
adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, the Examiner correctly
rejected claims 1-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-34 is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
19
Appeal2018-003532
Application 14/663,225
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
20