Ex Parte Lucioni

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2013

10885905 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/885,905 07/07/2004 Gonzalo Lucioni 2003P08796US 9147
7590 09/19/2013
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
OLANIRAN, FATIMAT O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2013 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 GONZALO LUCIONI
____________

Appeal 2011-005815
Application 10/885,905
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 11-14 and 16-28, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 1-10
and 15 have been cancelled. An Oral Hearing was conducted on this Appeal
on September 5, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2011-005815
Application 10/885,905

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 19, 2010), the Answer (mailed Oct.
20, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 13, 2010) for the respective
details.

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a conference device and method that
utilizes monaural head related transfer function (HRTF) filters to filter
monaural audio signals for different conference participants. An individual
monaural HRTF filter coefficient set defines the filter characteristic of a
particular HRTF filter. The monaural signal filtering permits a conference
participant to be virtually positioned in a different direction relative to a
median plane. See generally App. Br. 1 (citing ¶¶ [0004], [0007], and
[0013]-[0015] of the Specification).

Claim 11 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:

11. A conference device, comprising:
a plurality of monaural HRTF filters each HRTF filter allocated
to a different conference participant, each filter for filtering an input
monaural audio signal, an output of the monaural HRTF filter comprising an
output monaural audio signal, wherein each monaural HRTF filter comprises
a different monaural HRTF filter coefficient set for defining filter
characteristics of that filter and each filter coefficient set is configured to
provide a different directional auditory impression that virtually positions
each one of the allocated conference participants in a different direction
relative to a median plane; and
a conference mixing device coupled to the HRTF filters for mixing the
output monaural audio signals of different conference participants and for
transferring the mixed audio monaural signals to conference participants
over a communications system such that the transferred monaural signals
Appeal 2011-005815
Application 10/885,905

3
provide a different directional auditory impression that virtually positions
each one of the allocated conference participants in a different direction
relative to the median plane.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Cox US 5,875,233 Feb. 23, 1999
Curry US 7,012,630 B2 Mar. 14, 2006
(filed Feb. 8, 1996)
Faller US 7,116,787 B2 Oct. 3, 2006
(filed May 4, 2001)

Claims 11-14 and 16-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
invention.1
Claims 11-14, 16-22, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Faller.
Claims 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Faller in view of Cox.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Faller in view of Curry.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH, REJECTION

1 In the Final office action (mailed Jan. 20, 2010), the Examiner based this
rejection on two instances of alleged indefinite claim recitations, i.e., an
“output monaural . . . ,” recitation and an “monaural HRTF . . .” recitation.
In the Answer, the Examiner indicates that the “monaural HRTF . . .” basis
has been withdrawn. Ans. 3.

Appeal 2011-005815
Application 10/885,905

4
We do not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of appealed
claims 11-14 and 16-28. The Examiner has taken the position that, although
the claims recite a monaural signal being output from the monaural HRTF
filters, the claims describe the output as being directionally (left/right)
differentiated, i.e., a binaural signal. Ans. 3 and 16-21.
We agree with Appellant, however, that one of ordinary skill would
understand from the disclosure in the Specification that a monaural audio
signal is being output from the claimed monaural HRTF filter, not a binaural
output signal as alleged by the Examiner. App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 1-4.
As described in the Specification, it is known to synthesize a binaural audio
signal from a monaural signal by using binaural (left ear/right ear) HRTFs to
create a directional audio impression. Spec., ¶¶ [0011]-[0012]. Appellant’s
approach, however, is to use a monaural HRTF filter with an individual
HRTF filter coefficient set to produce a monaural output signal which
creates a simulated directional auditory impression that allows a listener to
directionally differentiate the filtered audio signals. Spec., ¶¶ [0013] and
[0034].
Accordingly, we conclude that the skilled artisan, having considered
the Specification in its entirety, would have no difficulty ascertaining the
scope of the invention recited in claims 11-14 and 16-28. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 11-14 and 16-28 as being indefinite under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not sustained.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Claims 11-14, 16-22, 26, and 27
Appeal 2011-005815
Application 10/885,905

5
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, based
on Faller, of claims 11-14, 16-22, 26, and 27. Appellant initially contends,
with respect to independent claims 11, 26, and 27, that Faller discloses that
virtual auditory positioning is provided by outputting binaural audio signals,
not monaural audio signals as claimed. App. Br. 14-17; Reply Br. 5. In a
related argument, Appellant contends that no reasonable basis exists for the
Examiner’s construction of the claimed term “monaural” to actually mean
“binaural.” App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellant as our interpretation of the disclosure of
Faller coincides with that of Appellant. As disclosed by Faller, a conference
node 304 synthesizes an auditory scene and provides for virtual directional
positioning by converting monaural signals into a binaural signal (Figs. 3
and 7; col. 4, l. 54-col. 5, l. 3 and col. 6, l. 64-col. 7, l. 4). Further, as
previously discussed with respect to the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection,
we find no basis in Appellant’s disclosure or in the claims, for the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed monaural audio signal output from
each monaural HRTF filter to actually mean a binaural signal.
Lastly, we recognize that the Examiner has presented an expanded
explanation of the stated position which suggests the obviousness to the
ordinarily skilled artisan of viewing each of the left and right HRTF filters of
Faller as a monaural filter. Ans. 6 and 24 (citing Fig. 7 and col. 9, ll. 32-54).
Even assuming, arguendo, this were the case, the Examiner has not provided
any explanation as to how the monaural audio output signals of each of
Faller’s left and right HRTF filters would produce a directional auditory
impression as claimed. To the contrary, it is apparent from the disclosure of
Faller that a directional auditory impression is provided by combining the
Appeal 2011-005815
Application 10/885,905

6
outputs of the left and right HRTF filters to produce a synthesized binaural
signal (Fig. 7; col. 9, ll. 1-54).

Claims 23-25 and 28
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 23-25 and 28 in which Cox and Curry were applied in
separate combinations with Faller to address the binary audio conversion
and chairperson identification features of the rejected claims. We find
nothing in Cox and Curry which overcomes the innate deficiencies of Faller
discussed supra.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 11-14 and 16-28 for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 11-14 and 16-28, all of the appealed claims, are
reversed.

REVERSED

gvw