Ex Parte KASTNER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14616374 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/616,374 02/06/2015
22918 7590 07/03/2018
PERKINS COIE LLP - PAO General
P.O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thorsten KASTNER
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.
110971-8848.USOl 3079
EXAMINER
OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THORSTEN KASTNER, JUERGEN HERRE,
LEON TERENTIV, OLIVER HELLMUTH, JOUNI PAUL US, and
PALKO RIDDERBUSCH
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V." App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
"The present invention relates to audio signal decoding and audio
signal processing, and, in particular, to a decoder and methods for adapting
audio information in spatial-audio-object-coding (SAOC)." Spec. p. 1, 11.
15-17. Claim 1 is reproduced below (disputed limitation in italics) and is
the representative claim for both rejections on appeal (listed infra). See
37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (representative claims).
1. An apparatus for adapting input audio information,
encoding one or more audio objects, to acquire adapted audio
information, wherein the input audio information comprises two
or more input audio downmix channels and further comprises
input parametric side information, wherein the adapted audio
information comprises one or more adapted audio downmix
channels and further comprises adapted parametric side
information, wherein the apparatus comprises:
a downmix signal modifier for adapting, depending on
adaptation information, the two or more input audio downmix
channels to acquire the one or more adapted audio downmix
channels, and
a parametric side information adapter for adapting, depending on
the adaptation information, the input parametric side information
to acquire the adapted parametric side information,
wherein the adaptation information comprises an adaptation
matrix,
wherein the downmix signal modifier is configured to adapt,
depending on the adaptation matrix, the two or more input audio
downmix channels to acquire the one or more adapted audio
downmix channels,
wherein the parametric side information adapter is configured
to adapt, depending on the adaptation matrix, the input
2
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374
parametric side information to acquire the adapted parametric
side information,
wherein the apparatus is implemented using a hardware
apparatus or using a computer or using a combination of a
hardware apparatus and a computer.
App. Br. 20-21 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception of statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2.
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Faller (US 2008/0130904 Al; published June 5, 2008). Final Act. 3---6.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
A. Principles of Law
The Supreme Court has long held that "[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLS Bankint'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Assoc.for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). The
"abstract ideas" category embodies the longstanding rule that an idea, by
itself, is not patentable. Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2354--
55 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
In Alice, the Supreme Court sets forth an analytical "framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts." Id. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to "determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts," such as an abstract idea. Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-
3
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374
ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements
of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination'" to determine
whether there are additional elements that "'transform the nature of the
claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 78 (2012)). In other
words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73.) The
prohibition against patenting an abstract idea "'cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment' or adding 'insignificant postsolution activity."' Bilski v.
Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (internal citation omitted.)
B. Examiner's Findings
The Examiner finds claim 1 is "directed to mathematical calculations
generating parametric information on downmixed signals" and "does[] not
include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception[.]" Final Act. 2. The Examiner elaborates:
[C]laims that recite mathematical formulas on a general purpose
computer, are not patent eligible[.] The current claimed steps of
matrix calculations, downmixing, parametric side information,
are mathematical calculations (abstract idea) [.] [T]he additional
element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s)[,] other
than the abstract idea per se[,] amount(s) to no more than
... conventional computer/hardware[.]
Ans. 3--4.
4
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374
C. Step One
Appellants contend claim 1 "represents more than just a mathematical
algorithm" (App. Br. 12) because:
[The claimed] apparatus for adapting input audio information is
a particular machine with a specific purpose (e.g., modifying
input audio downmix channels according to the elements of the
claim). The apparatus for adapting input audio information is not
simply a generic computer structure that serves to perform
generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine,
and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
The apparatus for adapting input audio information of claim 1
and the hardware elements associated with it represent
meaningful limitations which transform the abstract idea into a
patent eligible application of the abstract idea, such that the claim
as a whole amounts to "significantly more" than the abstract idea
itself.
The apparatus for adapting input audio information of claim 1
represents "improvements to another technology of technical
field". Specifically, claim 1 provides improvements to the field
of audio signal processing, more specifically improvements to
the field of audio decoding and high frequency reconstruction.
App. Br. 13. We are unpersuaded of error.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants' claims are directed to an
abstract idea of modifying (adapting) downmix signals and parametric side
information "depending on" an undescribed adaptation matrix. Such
modifying of signals and information via a matrix is plainly a mathematical
process. See, e.g., p. 3, 11. 1-26, p. 6, 1. 17-18, p. 7, 1. 14. There is no
definitive rule to determine what constitutes an "abstract idea." Rather, the
Federal Circuit has explained that "both [it] and the Supreme Court have
found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found
5
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374
to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases." Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Amdocs
(Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (explaining that, in determining whether claims are patent-eligible
under § 101, "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"). The
Federal Circuit also noted that "examiners are to continue to determine if the
claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a concept that is similar to
concepts previously found abstract by the courts." Amdocs, 841 F.3d at
1294 n.2 (internal citation omitted.)
Here, the claims are similar to the claims that the Federal Circuit
determined are patent ineligible in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Without additional
limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate
existing information to generate additional information is not patent
eligible." The Federal Circuit has also held similar data manipulation claims
to be directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas-see OIP Tech., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (offer-based
price optimization); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tailoring information presented to a
user based on particular information); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom
Ltd., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information and
"analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category"); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v.
6
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374
Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (generating
tasks in an insurance organization); and Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., 793
F.3d 1306, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (price-determination method involving
arranging organizational and product group hierarchies).
Appellants argue that the claimed invention more particularly
performs audio signal processing, audio decoding, and high frequency
reconstruction. App. Br. 13. Appellants do not show, however, that these
features are indeed required by claim 1. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Symstic Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The district court
erred in relying on technological details set forth in the patent's specification
and not set forth in the claims to find an inventive concept.") (citing
Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("[T]he important inquiry for a [section] 101 analysis
is to look to the claim.")). Nor do Appellants show these features, even if
recited ( arguendo ), do more than merely limit the claimed invention to a
technological environment. See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1332 ("[P]atenting an
ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an
ineligible concept to a particular technological environment."). Appellants
merely allege these features are claimed and sufficient to overcome the
judicial exception (using mathematical algorithms to manipulate
information). See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Mere
conclusory statements hold little probative value.).
D. Step Two
Turning to the second step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants contend:
"Assuming that the prior art rejections are overcome, the apparatus for
adapting input audio information of claim 1 will by definition, because it is
7
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374
novel and not-obvious, include at least one limitation other than what is
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field." App. Br. 13.
Even assuming that the methods and systems are not taught in the
prior art, that is not dispositive because even a novel and nonobvious claim
directed to a purely abstract idea is patent ineligible. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
1304. See also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1370 (holding claim ineligible
where "[t]he limitations amount to no more than performing the abstract idea
with conventional computer components."); see also SAP Am., Inc. v.
Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("The claims here are
ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject
matter."); compare Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[A]n inventive concept can be
found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
conventional pieces."). Appellants do not contend, much less show, claim 1
recites a novel feature that is not part-and-parcel of the claimed abstract idea.
We find nothing in the claims that adds anything "significantly more"
to transform the abstract idea of modifying (adapting) downmix signals and
parametric side information "depending on" an adaptation matrix. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2357. Beyond that abstract idea, the claims merely recite
"'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies ], "' such as implementing
the apparatus using hardware or a computer or a combination of both. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73). Appellants do not
identify any error in the Examiner's findings regarding these routine
elements. Considered individually or taken together as an ordered
combination, the claim elements fail "to 'transform' the claimed abstract
8
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374
idea into a patent-eligible application." Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 72-73, 78).
E. Conclusion
Appellants present only the above arguments against the rejection of
claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the foregoing reasons, we are not
persuaded of error. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
representative claim 1 and claims 2-13 falling therewith.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The disputed limitation of claim 1 is the "adapt[ing], depending on the
adaptation matrix, [of] the input parametric side information." Appellants
argue the Examiner erred by reading the claimed adaptation matrix and
parametric side information respectively on Faller's scaling factors ei(k) and
inter-channel level difference (ICLD) parameters. See infra. We address
Appellants' arguments in tum.
A. Whether Faller Discloses Adapting Input Parametric Side
Information "Depending On the Adaptation Matrix"
Used to Adapt the Downmixing Channels
Appellants contend Faller does not disclose adapting ICLD
parameters, which the Examiner identifies as teaching the recited
"parametric side information" "depending on" the scaling factors ei(k),
which the Examiner identifies as teaching the recited "adaptation matrix," as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 17.
This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner did not read the
claimed adaptation matrix only on Faller's scaling factors ei(k), but rather
also on the scaling factors ai(k). Specifically, the Examiner finds Faller's
downmixing channels and scaling factors ei(k) disclose the claimed
9
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374
downmixing channels and adaptation matrix, respectively (Final Act. 3; Ans.
9), and finds that Faller's ICLD parameters and scaling factors ai(k) disclose
the claimed parametric side information and its corresponded adaptation
matrix information, respectively (Final Act. 7; Ans. 9-10). Thus, the
Examiner identifies scaling factors ei(k) and scaling factors ai(k) collectively
as the recited "adaptation matrix." Ans. 9-10.
Appellants argue that "claim 1 requires that the input parametric side
information is adapted by exactly the same adaptation matrix that is used to
adapt the input audio downmix channels." App. Br. 17. This argument is
not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1,
which requires only that the adapting "depend[] on" the adaptation matrix,
not that the downmixing channels and the parametric side information be
multiplied by exactly the same matrix. We agree with the Examiner that
Faller discloses scaling of downmixing channels "depending on" the
adaptation matrix insofar as it uses scaling factors ei(k) and scaling of ICLD
"depending on" the adaptation matrix insofar as it uses the scaling factors
ai(k). Appellants, therefore, do not show the Examiner erred in finding
Faller's ICLD parameters depend on the scaling factors ai(k) and thereby
disclose the claimed "adapt[ing], depending on the adaptation matrix, [of]
the input parametric side information."
B. Whether Faller's Scaling Factors Disclose a "Matrix"
Appellants also contend "it is debatable, whether the scaling factors
ei(k) really constitute an adaptation matrix [and] Faller does not mention that
the scaling factors would define a matrix." App. Br. 16.
This argument is not persuasive because it is conclusory. That Faller
does not call its scaling factors ei(k) a "matrix" is immaterial. See In re
10
Appeal2018-001246
Application 14/616,374
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (For anticipation, the prior art
"elements must be arranged as in the claim under review, ... but this is not
an 'ipsissimis verbis' test."). As no further contentions are provided, e.g., a
meaning of "matrix" to compare against Faller's disclosure, we are
presented only a prima facie case and no meaningful rebuttal. See In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (requirements for a prima
facie case of anticipation).
Moreover, Appellants do not address the Examiner's finding that,
under broadest reasonable interpretation, even ei(k) alone constitutes a "1 x
'ith, matrix." Ans. 9. We are aware of no reason, and none is provided, that
Faller's scaling factors ei(k) and ai(k) cannot be reasonably interpreted as
constituting a single matrix, e.g., a matrix [ ei(k), ai(k)] having "i" quantity of
rows.
C. Conclusion
Appellants present only the above arguments against the rejection of
claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). For the foregoing reasons, we are
not persuaded of error. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of representative claim 1 and of claims 2-13 falling therewith.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-13.
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
11