Lyren, Philip Scott. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 25, 2020

15293251 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2020)

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.
15/293,251 10/13/2016 Philip Scott Lyren PSL-044 7774
64021 7590 08/25/2020
PHILIP S. LYREN, PC
289 Woodland Avenue
Wadsworth, OH 44281
EXAMINER
MOHAMMED, ASSAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2020 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 PHILIP SCOTT LYREN and GLEN A. NORRIS
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, ADAM J. PYONIN, AND
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant states the “inventors (Philip Lyren and Glen
Norris) are the real party in interest.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application relates to “provid[ing] binaural sound to a listener
while the listener watches a movie so sounds from the movie localize to a
location of a character in the movie.” Spec. 3:3–5. Claims 1–20 are
pending. Appeal Br. 34–38. Independent claims 1, 8, and 16 are reproduced
below for reference (emphases added):
1. A method to provide binaural sound to a listener in a
movie theater, the method comprising:
determining different head orientations of the listener with
respect to an image of a character as the image of the character
moves to different locations from one side of a movie screen to
an opposite side of the movie screen while being displayed to the
listener on the movie screen during a movie in the movie theater;
selecting, based on the head orientations of the listener
with respect to the image of the character, head related transfer
functions (HRTFs) so a voice of the character is heard to
originate to the listener from the image of the character as the
image of the character moves to the different locations from the
one side of the movie screen to the opposite side of the movie
screen;
convolving, with a digital signal processor, the voice of
the character with the HRTFs; and
providing, through a wearable electronic device and to the
listener, the voice of the character convolved with the HRTFs so
the voice of the character localizes to the listener as originating
from the image of the character as the image of the character
moves to the different locations from the one side of the movie
screen to the opposite side of the movie screen.

8. A method to provide binaural sound to a listener from a
point-of-view of a character in a feature length movie while the
listener watches the feature length movie, the method
comprising:
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

3
determining an azimuth angle between the character and
a source of sound in the feature length movie;
selecting a head related transfer function (HRTF) that
corresponds to the azimuth angle;
convolving, with a digital signal processor, sound from the
source of the sound with the HRTF; and
providing, through a wearable electronic device and to the
listener, the sound convolved with the HRTF so the listener hears
the sound from the point-of-view of the character while the
listener watches the feature length movie.

16. A method to provide binaural sound to a listener while the
listener watches a movie so sounds from the movie localize
behind the listener, the method comprising:
obtaining head related transfer functions (HRTFs) for the
listener;
selecting a character in the movie as an audial point-of-
view of the listener;
convolving, with a digital signal processor and with the
HRTFs, a sound in the movie that originates from behind the
character so the sound originates from behind the listener at a
location that is in empty space not occupied by a tangible object;
and
providing, through a wearable electronic device and to the
listener, the sound convolved with the HRTFs so the listener
localizes the sound to originate from behind the listener at the
location that is in the empty space not occupied by a tangible
object while the listener watches the movie.
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

4
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Lin US 2003/0053680 A1 Mar. 20, 2003
Shizuya
Antonellis
Heinemann
McRae
Norris
Lester
Karkkainen
Brown
Nair
US 2006/0159274 A1
US 2012/0062700 A1
US 2014/0328505 A1
US 2015/0195425 A1
US 2015/0373477 A1
US 2016/0119731 A1
US 2016/0183024 A1
US 2017/0094440 A1
US 2017/0105083 A1
July 20, 2006
Mar. 15, 2012
Nov. 6, 2014
July 9, 2015
Dec. 24, 2015
Apr. 28, 2016
June 23, 2016
Mar. 30, 2017
Apr. 13, 2017

Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lin2 and Karkkainen. Final Act. 9.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Heinemann, Karkkainen, and Lester. Final Act. 11, 25.
Claims 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Heinemann, Karkkainen, and Nair. Final Act. 14, 34.
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin, Karkkainen, and Heinemann. Final Act. 17, 20.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lin, Karkkainen, and Lester. Final Act. 18.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lin, Karkkainen, and Antonellis. Final Act. 23.

2 The Examiner refers to Heinemann instead of Lin in the first sentence of
the rejection; however, the rejection heading, citations, and remaining
analysis are with respect to Lin. See Final Act. 9–11. We consider the
initial incorrect reference to Heinemann to constitute harmless error.
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

5
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Heinemann, Karkkainen, Lester, and Antonellis. Final Act. 26.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Heinemann, Karkkainen, Lester, and McRae. Final Act. 27.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Heinemann, Karkkainen, Lester, and Shizuya. Final Act. 28.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Heinemann, Karkkainen, Lester, Shizuya, and Norris. Final Act. 29.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Heinemann, Karkkainen, Lester, and Nair. Final Act. 31.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Heinemann, Karkkainen, Lester, and Norris. Final Act. 32.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Heinemann, Karkkainen, Nair, and Norris. Final Act. 38.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Heinemann, Karkkainen, Nair, and Brown. Final Act. 39.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Independent Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 is in
error, because the “recitations in claim 1 are quite different than the
teachings in Lin.” Appeal Br. 8. Particularly, Appellant contends “Lin
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

6
never determines different head orientations of the listener,” and “Lin
provides no teaching or suggestion whatsoever as to how HRTFs[3] can be
used to generate sound to originate to the listener from images of characters
that move from one side of the movie screen to the other” as claimed. Id. at
9, 11.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in determining the limitations
of claim 1 are rendered obvious in view of the combined teachings of Lin
and Karkkainen.4 See Final Act. 11. Particularly, Appellant’s arguments
disregard the Examiner’s citation to Karkkainen. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 10
(“The Examiner does not rel[y] on Karkkainen for teaching or suggesting
this claim recitation.”); Final Act. 9–11; In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.”). In the Final Action, the Examiner finds Karkkainen teaches

3 Appellant’s Specification explains that “[s]ound is convolved with head
related transfer functions (HRTFs) of the listener.” Spec. 3:5–6.
4 In the Answer, the Examiner newly relies on “Lin’s incorporate[d]
reference 5,438,623 (Begault) in paragraph 0029,” for teaching a head
orientation determination. Ans. 35. We note the Examiner does not attempt
to show that Lin properly incorporates by reference any particular head
orientation teachings of Begault (nor does the Examiner provide a reason to
combine Begault with the cited references). Cf. Advanced Display Sys., Inc.
v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“To incorporate
material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed
particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where
that material is found in the various documents.”). Appellant, however, does
not challenge the propriety of the Examiner’s new citation to Begault in the
Answer. See Reply Br. 2. In any event, we do not reach the issue of
whether Begault is properly part of the rejection because, as discussed
herein, we do not find the Examiner’s rejection with respect to the teachings
of Lin and Karkkainen is in error.
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

7
the “system processes the audio signals with the HTRF in order to represent
the audio signal based on the head bearings (head tracking) of the user.”
Final Act. 11 (emphasis omitted); Karkkainen ¶ 52 (“In order to more
accurately determine the direction from the user to the object so as to permit
the head-related transfer function filter to create a more representative audio
cue, the apparatus . . . is configured to determine the head bearing of the
user.”). Appellant does not argue the Examiner’s reliance on Karkkainen is
in error.
Nor does Appellant show the Examiner’s rejection with respect to the
combination of Lin and Karkkainen is in error. We agree with the Examiner
that Lin teaches or suggests localizing the voice of a character, as claimed.
See Final Act. 10. Lin discloses “extract[ing] different sound sources . . .
[which] typically comprise voices,” and “match[ing] each sound source with
a video object,” when using “head related transfer functions (HRTF’s) for
. . . . producing 3-dimensional audio signals that appear to come from
separate and discrete positions from about the head of a listener.” Lin ¶¶ 15,
17, 29; see also Lin, Abstract, ¶ 24. Appellant does not challenge the
Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill would combine Lin’s 3-D
voice signal reproduction system with Karkkainen’s teachings, “in order to
provide the sense of sound position based on the head orientation of the
user.” Final Act. 11; Lin Fig. 2, ¶ 20; Karkkainen ¶¶ 51, 52. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief
will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present
appeal”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

8
than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the
prior art.”).
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1. Appellant does not present additional substantive arguments with
respect to dependent claims 2 and 4. See Appeal Br. 19. Thus, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed above.

Independent Claim 8
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 is in error,
because “the Examiner did not address the language actually recited in claim
8.” Appeal Br. 13. Particularly, Appellant contends that the claim “recites
determining an azimuth angle between two specific objects: a character in a
feature length movie and a source of sound in the feature length movie. By
stark contrast, Karkkainen determines head bearing between two totally
different things: a listener and an object in the feature length movie.” Id. at
14. Appellant similarly contends the “teaching[s] in Lester are
fundamentally different than the recitations in claim 8.” Id. at 15.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. Claim 8 recites a “method to
provide binaural sound to a listener from a point-of-view of a character in a
feature length movie,” including a step of “determining an azimuth angle
between the character and a source of sound in the feature length movie.”
Appeal Br. 36. The Examiner finds this limitation to be obvious in view of
“Karkkainen[’s] teach[ing of] convolving, with a digital signal processor, the
voice of the character” and Lester’s “system [which] tracks the user head
position.” Final Act. 13; Karkkainen ¶ 51; Lester ¶¶ 41–44. Each of these
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

9
references, however, is cited for teachings with respect to an angle measured
from the viewer of the movie. See Final Act. 11–14; Ans. 50–52.
The Examiner does not identify—and we do not see in the record
before us—any teaching or suggestion of determining an angle between two
objects in the movie. See, e.g., Final Act. 13 (“Lester does not teach the
object in a move screen, however, Heinemann and Karkkainen teach the
[angle] at which the user’s head positon is tracked relative to the object on
the screen.”). Nor does the Examiner provide a rationale to modify the
references to determine such an angle. See Final Act. 14 (“The modification
is to determine the [angle] of the user’s head orientation”); Ans. 51
(“Heinemann and Lester in combination would provide [the] feature and
function of sound source position on the screen relative to the listener.”).
Therefore, the Examiner has not shown the disputed claim limitation is
rendered obvious by the cited art.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 8 is in error. We do not sustain this rejection, or the rejections of the
claims dependent thereon.

Independent Claim 16
Claim 16 recites “selecting a character in the movie as an audial point-
of view of the listener.” Appeal Br. 37. Appellant argues the Examiner’s
rejection of this claim is in error, because “Heinemann provides no teaching
or suggestion about such an audial point-of-view,” and “Heinemann does not
even teach or suggest selecting a character in the movie.” Appeal Br. 18.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. The Examiner finds Heinemann
teaches the disputed limitations, because Heinemann’s “system determines
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

10
which object the user is viewing by tracking the user’s head
position/orientation and then would provide the audio using the HRTF to
provide the sound source in association with the head position.” Final Act.
14, 15; Heinemann ¶¶ 28, 29, 39. The cited portions of Heinemann,
however, provide no teaching or suggestion regarding an audial point of
view. Rather, the Examiner states Heinemann’s teaching of the “sound from
the object (character) would be from the audial point of view of the
character,” and the “object on the screen can be viewed in which the sound
provided from the object at that location and direction would be provided to
the user.” Ans. 59 (emphases added). We disagree—such sound from an
object would not reasonably represent the object’s point of view, as claimed.
See Appeal Br. 18. We find the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because
Heinemann does not teach or suggest an audial point of view, and the
Examiner does not rely on additional reasoning or the other cited references
for teaching this limitation. See Ans. 59.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claim 16, or the rejections of the claims dependent thereon.

Dependent Claims
Dependent claim 3 recites, inter alia, the “method of claim 1 further
comprising: determining azimuth angles and elevation angles between a
forward facing head orientation of the listener and the image of the
character.” Appeal Br. 34. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in
error, because “Lester teaches tracking head orientations of a user with
respect to an apparatus, speaker,” but “Lester provides no teaching or
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

11
suggestion whatsoever to substitute the speaker, apparatus 52 with an image
of a character being shown on a movie screen.” Appeal Br. 20.
We are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 3, because
Appellant’s argument only focuses on teachings within Lester, and ignores
the Examiner’s analysis with respect to the combination. Id.; Final Act. 19
(“[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to modify Lin and Karkkainen to incorporate the
azimuth and elevation angles” of Lester.); see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”). Thus, Appellant
does not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding that one of ordinary skill
would combine the particular angle teachings of Lester in the method of Lin
and Karkkainen. See Ans. 63, 64; Lester ¶¶ 28, 41–43, 44 (“referencing
target data 44 indicating a pre-defined target azimuth angle, target elevation
angle and target distance for the head region in relation to the current
position and orientation of the sound generating device”). We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 3.
Dependent claims 5 and 7 each recite providing “point-of-view”
sound that relates to a character in the movie. Appeal Br. 35, 36. Appellant
argues the Examiner has not shown the cited references teach or suggest
these limitations. See Appeal Br. 22, 23. We agree. The Examiner has not
shown Heinemann and Karkkainen teach or suggest these limitations, for the
same reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 16. The
Examiner does not rely on Lin for these limitations. See Final Act. 21, 22.
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

12
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5
and 7.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and recites “switching, in response to
the position of the character no longer being located on the movie screen, the
voice of the character from being provided in binaural sound to being
provided to the listener in stereo sound.” Appellant argues the Examiner’s
rejection is in error, because “Lin provides no teaching whatsoever to switch
binaural sound to stereo sound in response to the position of the character no
longer being located on the movie screen,” and “Antonellis . . . provide[s] no
teaching or suggestion to switch binaural sound to stereo sound in response
to the position of the character no longer being located on the movie screen.”
Appeal Br. 24.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for not being responsive to the
Examiner’s rejection: Appellant attacks the teachings of Lin and Antonellis
separately, whereas the Examiner concludes claim 6 is obvious in view of
the combined teachings of the references. See Final Act. 23–25; Lin Fig. 2;
Karkkainen ¶ 32; Antonellis ¶¶ 37–41, 42 (“At one point, one or both of the
actors A and B are positioned ‘off stage’ behind the viewer,” and their
“positions are tracked and/or plotted from the video component object
tracking map and corresponding audio object tracks are processed with 3D
space position cues to correspond to these positions by component.”); see
also Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.”). Particularly, the Examiner finds, and Appellant
does not challenge, that one of ordinary skill (in view of the cited references)
would determine that “moving from localized sound to a surround sound is
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

13
obvious.” Final Act. 25. As the Examiner’s obviousness findings and
reasoning are not challenged, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection is in error. We sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 6.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1 103 Lin, Karkkainen 1
8, 9 103 Heinemann, Karkkainen,
Lester
8, 9
16–18 103 Heinemann, Karkkainen,
Nair
16–18
2, 4, 5, 7 103 Lin, Karkkainen, Heinemann 2, 4 5, 7
3 103 Lin, Karkkainen, Lester 3
6 103 Lin, Karkkainen, Antonellis 6
10 103 Heinemann, Karkkainen,
Lester, Antonellis
10
11 103 Heinemann, Karkkainen,
Lester, McRae
11
12 103 Heinemann, Karkkainen,
Lester, Shizuya
12
13 103 Heinemann, Karkkainen,
Lester, Shizuya, Norris
13
14 103 Heinemann, Karkkainen,
Lester, Nair
14
15 103 Heinemann, Karkkainen,
Lester, Norris
15
19 103 Heinemann, Karkkainen,
Nair, Norris
19
20 103 Heinemann, Karkkainen,
Nair, Brown
20
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6 5, 7–20
Appeal 2019-002956
Application 15/293,251

14

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART