Ex Parte Lindahl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

12556380 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
04860.P7835 2413
EXAMINER
SOSANYA, OBAFEMI OLUDAYO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/556,380 09/09/2009 Aram Lindahl
45217 7590 07/31/2017
APPLE INC./BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
07/31/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARAM LINDAHL and KELVIN CHIU
Appeal 2016-003474
Application 12/556,3801
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JASON J. CHUNG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—27.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed “to altering audio signals for playback on a
device.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at an electronic device, a plurality of video
data frames representing an object;
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 3.
2 Claim 28 has been canceled. App. Br. 39.
Appeal 2016-003474
Application 12/556,380
receiving, at the electronic device, an audio signal
associated with the plurality of video data frames, wherein the
audio signal includes a first audio property and a second audio
property;
processing, by the electronic device, the video data
frames, wherein processing the video data frames includes
encoding the video data frames via a video encoder of the
electronic device to provide encoding data, wherein the
encoding data includes a motion vector calculated by the video
encoder for the object, and wherein the motion vector includes
a horizontal directionality and a vertical directionality; and
altering, by the electronic device, the audio signal
associated with the plurality of video data frames, wherein
altering the audio signal includes:
adjusting the first audio property based on the
horizontal directionality of the motion vector, and
adjusting the second audio property based on the
vertical directionality of the motion vector.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1—9, 11, and 13—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kondo (U.S. Pat. No. 8,249,305
B2; filed Mar. 27, 2009, published, Aug. 21, 2012, hereinafter “Kondo”) and
Yuasa (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0323984 Al; filed June 26, 2009,
published Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter “Yuasa”). Ans. 4—15.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kondo, Yuasa, and Jeong (U.S. Pat.
App. Pub. No. 2008/0298705 Al; published Dec. 4, 2008, published Dec. 4,
2008, hereinafter “Jeong”). Ans. 15—16.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kondo, Yuasa, and Saito (U.S. Pat.
App. Pub. No. 2008/0279272 Al; published Nov. 13, 2008). Ans. 16.
2
Appeal 2016-003474
Application 12/556,380
Claims 18 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bang (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
2007/0012167 Al; published Jan. 18, 2007, hereinafter “Bang”) and
Baarman (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0212637 Al; published Aug. 27,
2009; hereinafter “Baarman”). Ans. 17—19.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bang, Baarman, and Kondo. Ans. 19-
20.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bang, Baarman, Kondo, and Jeong.
Ans. 20—21.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bang, Baarman, and Nakamura (U.S.
Pat. App. Pub. No. 2008/0240461 Al; published Oct. 2, 2008). Ans. 21—22.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kondo, Yuasa, and Bang. Ans. 22—25.
Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kondo, Yuasa, Bang, and Jeong.
Ans. 25-27.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kondo, Yuasa, Bang, Hansson (U.S.
Pat. App. Pub. No. 2008/0314232 Al; published Dec. 25, 2008), and
Baarman. Ans. 27—30.
3
Appeal 2016-003474
Application 12/556,380
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1—17 and 24—27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Kondo fails to teach the limitation “adjusting the
first audio property based on the horizontal directionality of the motion
vector; and adjusting the second audio property based on the vertical
directionality of the motion vector,” as recited in claim 1 (and similarly
recited in independent claims 7, 13, and 24). Ans. 5, 10, 13, 23, 24. The
Examiner finds Yuasa teaches movement of the position of the image data
teaches the aforementioned limitation because there is direction associated
with the movement as illustrated using arrows in Figures 3 and 4. Ans. 6,
30-31 (citing Yuasa Tflf 40, 49, Figs. 3—4).
Appellants argue although Yuasa’s object inherently has direction, the
direction does not cause the adjustment of the first audio property and the
second audio property. App. Br. 10—12; Reply Br. 6—7. Rather, Appellants
argue Yuasa’s movement and velocity cause the adjustment of the first audio
property and the second audio property. App. Br. 10—14; Reply Br. 8. In
particular, Appellants argue that paragraph 42 and Figure 3 of Yuasa teach
the “audio clarity associated with the object moving down and to the right
(in the upper left comer of the screen)” is the same as the audio clarity of the
object “moving up and to the right (in the upper right comer of the screen).”
App. Br. 13 (citing Yuasa 142, Fig. 3). We agree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Yuasa relied upon by the Examiner teach
adjusting audio pitch based on movement and velocity. Ans. 6, 30—31
(citing Yuasa Tflf 40, 49, Figs. 3—4). However, the cited portions of Yuasa
relied upon by the Examiner fail to teach “adjusting the first audio property
based on the horizontal directionality of the motion vector; and adjusting the
4
Appeal 2016-003474
Application 12/556,380
second audio property based on the vertical directionality of the motion
vector” (emphases added). Stated differently, in Yuasa, the direction in
which the object moves is irrelevant in causing an adjustment to audio pitch.
See Yuasa 142, Fig. 3. This is highlighted by Yuasa’s teaching that the
audio clarity of the object in the upper left comer of Figure 3 and the audio
clarity of the object in the upper right comer of the screen are the same
despite traveling in different directions because both objects have the same
velocity. See Yuasa 142, Fig. 3.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1; independent claims 7 and 13 which recite
commensurate limitations; and dependent claims 2—6, 8, 9, 11, and 14—17
for similar reasons.3
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 24 and dependent
claims 10, 12, and 25—27 add other references, as discussed supra.
However, the Examiner has not shown that the additional cited references
cure Yuasa’s deficiencies regarding those claims. Because this issue is
dispositive regarding our reversing the Examiner’s rejection of these claims,
we need not address Appellants’ other associated arguments.
Rejection of Claims 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Bang teaches moving a device in certain
directions causes corresponding sounds on a musical scale depending on the
direction of the movement. Ans. 17 (citing Bang 135). Moreover, the
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
the combination of Kondo, Yuasa, and Bang teaches the limitations of
independent claims 1, 7, and 13.
5
Appeal 2016-003474
Application 12/556,380
Examiner finds Baarman teaches increasing volume based on a clockwise
rotation of an object and decreasing volume based on a counter-clockwise
rotation of an object. Ans. 18 (citing Baarman | 61). In addition, the
Examiner finds it is irrelevant that Baarman pertains to controlling volume
of another device. Ans. 34.
Appellants argue Bang fails to teach an audio stream because Bang
merely teaches single audio notes. App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 17. Moreover,
Appellants argue Baarman does not teach altering an audio stream signal
based on direction of physical motion because Baarman pertains to
controlling volume of another device. Id. at 20 (citing Baarman | 61). We
disagree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Bang relied upon by the Examiner teach a sensor
that senses moving a device in certain directions causes corresponding
sounds on a musical scale (e.g., “audio stream”) depending on the direction
of the movement. Ans. 17 (citing Bang 135). Baarman, relied upon by the
Examiner, at least suggests increasing volume (e.g., “alter a parameter of the
audio”) based on a clockwise rotation (e.g., “physical motion in a first
direction”) of an object, and decreasing volume based on a counter­
clockwise rotation (e.g., “physical motion in a second direction opposite to
the first direction”) of an object (Baarman 1 61).4 The aforementioned
sentence teaches the limitation “alter a parameter of the audio stream signal
4 Appellant acknowledges that this “volume control” is at least “relevant” to
audio generation. See App. Br. 20 (“With respect to audio generation . . .
the only relevant disclosure of Baarman pertains to using magnetic
positioning system to determine direction of rotation of a remote device, and
then using that information to control volume of another device.”) (emphasis
added).
6
Appeal 2016-003474
Application 12/556,380
based on the direction of physical motion sensed by the motion detecting
device, wherein the parameter is increased when the motion detecting device
senses physical motion in a first direction and the parameter is decreased
when the motion detecting device senses physical motion in a second
direction opposite to the first direction,” as recited in claim 18.
As for Appellants’ argument (see App. Br. 20) that Baarman pertains
to controlling volume of another device, the scope of claim 18 is not so
limited. Put another way, claim 18 does not require the device in motion to
be the same device as the device with the altering parameter.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 18. The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 19—21
and 23 add other references, as discussed supra. Because Appellants have
provided similar arguments (see App. Br. 21—25; Reply Br. 12—13) against
the rejections of claims 19—23, these claims fall with claim 18 for the same
reasons as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—17 and 24—27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18—23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
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-IN-PART
7