SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2021

2021001271 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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.
15/129,218 09/26/2016 Sang-bae CHON Q218718 1986
23373 7590 08/02/2021
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 9000
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
SELLERS, DANIEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2653
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2021 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
sughrue@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SANG-BAE CHON, SUN-MIN KIM, and
HYUN JO1
________________

Appeal 2021-001271
Application 15/129,218
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 20–38, which constitute all claims pending in this
application. Appeal Br. 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral
argument was held on July 20, 2021. A transcript of that proceeding will be
added to the record in due course.
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed July 1, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), 2.
Appeal 2021-001271
Application 15/129,218

2
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to improvements in stereophonic sound,
which, as Appellant explains,
denotes a sound, to which spatial information is added, capable
of reproducing a direction or a distance of a sound, as well as
pitch and tone color of a sound, allowing a listener to have an
immersive feeling, and making a listener, who does not exist in
a space where a sound source has occurred, experience
directional, distance, and spatial perceptions.
Spec. ¶ 2.
Appellant further explains that it was known to take a multi-channel
input sound signal designed for 22 speakers (including two sub-woofers)
that are arranged in a standardized layout around a listening position at
various azimuths and elevations and convert or render that input signal into
an output signal suitable for a different standardized layout of five speakers
that are all arranged around a listening position at various azimuths, but with
no elevations. Spec. ¶ 3 (“When a channel signal such as a 22.2 channel is
rendered as a 5.1 channel, a three-dimensional (3D) stereophonic sound may
be reproduced using a two-dimensional (2D) output channel.”).
Appellant explains that this type of known sound rendering has a
technical limitation: “rendered audio signals are so sensitive to a layout of
speakers that a sound image distortion may occur if an arrangement layout
of speakers is different from a standard layout.” Spec. ¶ 3.
Appellant summarizes the present invention as follows:
In cases of rendering a multichannel signal such as a
22.2 channel signal as a 5.1 channel signal, a three dimensional
(3D) audio signal may be reproduced using a two dimensional
Appeal 2021-001271
Application 15/129,218

3
(2D) output channel, but rendered audio signals are sensitively
affected by a layout of speakers and may cause distortion of a
sound image when the layout of arranged speakers is different
from a standard layout.
The present invention may solve the aforementioned
problem of the prior art. The audio signal rendering method for
reducing distortion of a sound image even when the layout of the
arranged speakers is different from the standard layout.
Spec., Abstr.
Independent claim 20, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter
of the appealed claims:
20. A method of rendering an audio signal, the method
comprising:
receiving multi-channel signals including one or more
height input channel signals, to be converted from input channel
configurations to output channel configurations;
obtaining a panning gain for a height input channel signal
to be converted into an output channel signal of an output
loudspeaker based on a standard loudspeaker position;
obtaining deviation information including an elevation
deviation and an azimuth deviation, wherein the deviation
information indicates a difference between a position of the
output loudspeaker and the standard loudspeaker position;
modifying the obtained panning gain based on the
elevation deviation and an elevation of the standard loudspeaker
position; and
rendering the multi-channel signals to provide overhead
sound via the output channel configurations based on the
modified panning gain.

STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 20–26, 29–35, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US 2012/0008789 A1;
Appeal 2021-001271
Application 15/129,218

4
published Jan. 12, 2012), Hess (US 2005/0078833 A1; published Apr. 14,
2005), and Suzuki (US 2004/0151476 A1; published Aug. 5, 2004). Final
Act. 2–9.
Claims 27 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Hess, Suzuki, and Jot
(US 2009/0092259 A1; published Apr. 9, 2009). Final Act. 10.
Claims 28 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Hess, Suzuki, and Ohashi
(US 2012/0250869 A1; published Oct. 4, 2012). Final Act. 11–12.

THE EXAMINER’S DETERMINATIONS
The Examiner finds that Kim discloses most of the limitations of
claim 20, but that Kim does not disclose the claim language, “wherein the
deviation information indicates a difference between a position of the output
loudspeaker and the standard loudspeaker position.” Claim 20, Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds that Hess teaches determining deviations in azimuth
between an actual position of the output loudspeaker and the standard
loudspeaker position. Id. at 4. The Examiner further determines that Hess
provides a motivation to combine the teachings of Hess and Kim. Id.
The Examiner additionally finds that neither Kim nor Hess discloses
obtaining information regarding the deviation in elevation between an actual
position of the output loudspeaker and the standard loudspeaker position, or
“modifying the obtained panning gain based on [this] elevation deviation.”
Claim 20, Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that “Suzuki teaches that the
positions of loudspeakers are determined in three dimensions, such that
height differences are acquired.” Id. (citing Suzuki ¶ 39). The Examiner
Appeal 2021-001271
Application 15/129,218

5
determines that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Suzuki with those of Kim and Hess “for the purpose of compensating the
deviations of loudspeakers from their expected positions in both azimuth and
elevation.” Id. (citing Hess ¶¶ 9, 17, 32; Suzuki ¶ 39).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that neither Kim nor Hess teaches the features of
obtaining a panning gain, obtaining deviation information, and modifying
the panning gain and rendering the multi-channel signals. Appeal Br. 8.
More specifically, Appellant argues, “Hess does not disclose multichannel
signals including one or more height input channel signals and does not
disclose panning gain either.” Id. at 10. Appellant further argues that “Hess
does not disclose elevation deviation information.” Id.
This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
Suzuki for teaching obtaining information regarding elevation deviations—
not Kim or Hess. Final Act. 4. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant next argues that Suzuki does not cure the deficiency of Kim
and Hess because “Suzuki does not disclose or suggest the features of
modifying obtained panning gain based on the elevation deviation and
an elevation of the standard loudspeaker position and rendering the
multi-channel signals to provide overhead sound via the output channel
configurations based on the modified panning gain of claim 20.” Appeal
Br. 10–11.
Appeal 2021-001271
Application 15/129,218

6
Appellant acknowledges that “Suzuki discloses a multichannel
reproducing apparatus” that calculates distances between the listening
position and loudspeakers. Appeal Br. 11. But Appellant contends that
Suzuki merely discloses performing these calculations based upon three-
dimensional coordinate positions determined for each loudspeaker and the
selected listening position. Id. at 11–12. According to Appellant,
Suzuki only discloses playback speakers, not standard speakers
that should be in the standard position. In other words, Suzuki
discloses obtaining difference between positions of actual
physically reproduced speakers, but it does not disclose elevation
deviation between the position of the playback speaker and the
position of the standard speaker.
Id. at 12.
This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Kim
and Hess—not Suzuki—for teaching that the panning gain can be adjusted
based on obtaining deviations from standard speaker positions. Final Act. 3;
Examiner’s Answer, 4, mailed Oct. 14, 2020. The Examiner relies on Suzuki
for teaching that position information also can include height differences, as
well as azimuth differences. Final Act. 4. Appellant’s argument improperly
attacks the Suzuki reference individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
For the foregoing reasons, we disagree with Appellant’s assertion,
even if Kim, Hess and Suzuki are combined, the combination of
the cited references does not disclose or suggest the feature of
modifying panning gain based on elevation deviation
indicating the difference in position between a standard
speaker and a reproduced speaker, and the feature of rendering
Appeal 2021-001271
Application 15/129,218

7
multi-channels based on the modified panning gain as
claimed.
Appeal Br. 12. That is, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20
and of claims 21–26, 28, 30–35, and 38, which Appellant does not
argue separately. See Appeal Br. 12.
We, likewise, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 27 and 36 over Kim, Hess, Suzuki, and Jot and of claims 28 and 37
over Kim, Hess, Suzuki, and Ohashi. Appellant does not particularly point
out errors in the Examiner’s reasoning regarding the additionally relied upon
teachings of Jot or Ohashi. Rather, Appellant merely argues for these claims’
patentability based upon their dependencies from claims 20 and 29. Appeal
Br. 13–15.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
20–26,
29–35, 38
103 Kim, Hess, Suzuki 20–26,
29–35, 38

27, 36 103 Kim, Hess, Suzuki, Jot 27, 36
28, 37 103 Kim, Hess, Suzuki,
Ohashi
28, 37
Overall
Outcome
20–38
Appeal 2021-001271
Application 15/129,218

8
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED