Ex Parte Norris

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2017

13969292 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
13/969,292 08/16/2013 ELWOOD Grant NORRIS 31XJ-170540 8377
30764 7590 07/31/2017
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
12275 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
EXAMINER
MONIKANG, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2017 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):
DOCKETING@ SHEPPARDMULLIN.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELWOOD GRANT NORRIS
Appeal 2017-008654
Application 13/969,2921
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to “multi-dimensional audio processing for
ultrasonic audio systems,” such as replacing a conventional 5 or 7 channel
surround sound system. Spec, 2—9.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1 Appellant states the real party in interest is Parametric Sound Corp. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-008654
Application 13/969,292
1. A method of producing multi-dimensional parametric audio,
comprising:
determining a desired spatial position of an audio
component relative to a predetermined listening position;
processing the audio component for a predetermined
number of output channels, wherein the step of processing the
audio component comprises determining the appropriate phase,
delay, and gain values for each output channel so that the audio
component is generated so as to create a perceived audio
component origination point at a chosen location in space
relative to an air column about the predetermined listening
position and commensurate with the desired apparent spatial
position relative to the listening position;
encoding two or more output channels of the audio
component with the determined phase, delay, and gain values for
each output channel; and
modulating the encoded output channels onto respective
ultrasonic carriers for emission via a predetermined number of
ultrasonic emitters.
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 5—8, 11—14, 18, 19, 21, 23—26, 29-32, and 36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Aarts
et al. (US 2012/0076306 Al; Mar. 29, 2012), Oh et al. (US 2010/0250259
Al; Sept. 30, 2010), and Bums et al. (US 2010/0177178 Al; July 15, 2010).
Final Act. 3—8.
Claims 2, 4, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Aarts, Oh, Bums, and Vercoe et al.
(US 6,327,367 Bl; Dec. 4, 2001). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 9, 10, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Aarts, Oh, Bums, and Koppens et al.
(US 2009/0252338 Al; Oct. 8, 2009). Final Act. 10.
2
Appeal 2017-008654
Application 13/969,292
Claims 15 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Aarts, Oh, Bums, and Herre et al.
(US 2005/0074127 Al; Apr. 7, 2005). Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 16, 17, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Aarts, Oh, Bums, and Norris et al.
(US 6,850,623 Bl; Feb. 1, 2005). Final Act. 11-12.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Aarts, Oh,
and Bums teaches or suggests the limitation in claim 1 of
determining the appropriate phase, delay, and gain values for
each output channel so that the audio component is generated so
as to create a perceived audio component origination point at a
chosen location in space relative to an air column about the
predetermined listening position and commensurate with the
desired apparent spatial position relative to the listening
position?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Aarts teaches or suggests “the
audio source is encoded with component positioning information that relates
to the spatial position of the audio component,” as recited in claim 5?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding Aarts teaches or suggests
“decoding the encoded audio source to obtain each audio component of the
plurality of audio components and the information that relates to the spatial
position of each audio component,” as recited in claim 6?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to combine Aarts, Oh, and Bums with
Vercoe for purposes of claim 2?
5. Did the Examiner err in concluding claim 9 would have been
obvious over the combinations of Aarts, Oh, Bums, and Koppens?
3
Appeal 2017-008654
Application 13/969,292
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 13—19, 21, 25, 26, and 31—36
Claim 1 recites:
determining the appropriate phase, delay, and gain values for
each output channel so that the audio component is generated so
as to create a perceived audio component origination point at a
chosen location in space relative to an air column about the
predetermined listening position and commensurate with the
desired apparent spatial position relative to the listening position.
The determined values are then encoded on output channels and modulated
onto ultrasonic carriers.
The Examiner relies on a combination of Aarts, Oh, and Bums for
teaching claim 1. Ans. 2-4. According to Appellant,
Aarts specifically discloses “hybrid” speakers having both an
ultrasonic emitter and a conventional audio range loudspeaker,
such that the audio range of the loudspeaker is used to emit sound
to the “front” of the listener, while the ultrasonic emitter is used
to bounce or reflect sound from one or more walls to imitate
sound emanating from conventional “rear” channel surround
sound speakers without actually having speakers behind the
listener.
Br. 8 (citing Aarts Tflf 63, 64, 72).
Appellant contends Aarts’ ultrasound emitters are “merely used for
achieving directionality,” not “sound to be produced at discrete points along
the perimeter of the listening field, which allows sound to appear as if it is
emanating from ‘points closer to or farther from the listener.’” Br. 8
(quoting Spec. 129). Appellant argues that because of this, Aarts’ delay is
calculated to determine merely “direction,” not “a desired apparent spatial
position relative to the listening position.” Id. at 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. In addition to
4
Appeal 2017-008654
Application 13/969,292
agreeing with the Examiner’s alternative conclusion that the claims do not
preclude reflection (Ans. 11—12), we also agree that the Examiner relies on
Bums for teaching this limitation, not Aarts alone. Final Act. 4; Ans. 12.
Bums et al teaches an audio enhancement system where speaker
output can be used to generate virtual sounds in air without
reflecting off of a surface (Burns et al para 0038; para 0005:
delay is applied to the speaker outputs to produce an illusion to
a listener that sounds emanate from a ‘phantom’/virtual
location), wherein the ultrasonic speakers could be used in place
of the conventional speakers (Burns et al para 0050).
Ans. 12. For example, Bums discloses “pairs of loudspeakers in units 2 are
employed to synthesize virtual or phantom sound sources coincident with
the locations of participants.” Bums 150 (emphasis added). Moreover,
“parametric speakers that use ultrasonic carrier beams can replace the
conventional loudspeakers.” Id. (emphasis added). Because Bums teaches
phantom locations, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
“Bums merely teaches distributing sound along a selected direction or path,
and not at a particular point in space as claimed.” Br. 14. Thus, we see no
error in the Examiner finding Bums teaches or suggests using ultrasonic
emitters “to create a perceived audio component origination point at a
chosen location in space relative to an air column about the predetermined
listening position and commensurate with the desired apparent spatial
position relative to the listening position.”
Bums also teaches calculating “delay” as part of creating the phantom
location. Ans. 12; Bums 1 5 (“One previous technique involves feeding
suitably and multiply delayed versions of an electronic acoustic signal to two
spaced loudspeakers to produce the illusion to a listener that the sounds
emanate from a third, ‘phantom’ location.”) (emphasis added); see also
5
Appeal 2017-008654
Application 13/969,292
Bums H 7 (“In the simplest embodiment, the relayed sounds are . . . time
shifted (delayed) to arrive substantially in expected synchronization with the
natural sounds or speech heard directly from the speaker.”), 34, claim 10.
Appellant further contends Bums changes the principle of operation
of Aarts because Aarts reflects off surfaces whereas Bums does not. Br. 12—
13. “[S]uch a modification would require loudspeakers to be physically
placed behind the listener in order to achieve the desired surround sound
effect.” Id. at 12. Yet Figure 3 of Bums depicts speakers 36 in front of
listener 34, not behind (138), and phantom sounds from such front speakers
(11 5, 50) achieves Aarts’ goal of having all speakers in front. Aarts 110.
Appellant also contends “because Oh specifically seeks to utilize
sound without directionality, while Aarts is specifically directed towards
improving the perceived direction of sound, combining the two references
would destroy the fundamental purpose of Aarts.” Br. 11. According to the
Examiner, “Oh is used to teach the concept of adjusting the gain and phase
with the purpose of controlling the direction of the ambient signal.” Ans. 12
(citing Oh 1109). Thus, the Examiner is not relying on Oh to teach the
ambient signal itself, but rather Oh’s adjustment of gain and phase. We also
note Oh discloses “the phase information can enhance the stereo effect of the
ambient component signal.” Oh 1 109; see also Oh H 8—9 (“the present
invention can enhance a stereo effect”). We are not persuaded the Examiner
erred finding a person of ordinary skill would have known gain and phase
can affect directionality, as taught by Oh, and can be adjusted in Aarts for
non-ambient sounds. Though not relied on by the Examiner, we also note
Bums teaches adjusting phase (151) and Aarts teaches adjusting gain
(1134). Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner failed to articulate
6
Appeal 2017-008654
Application 13/969,292
reasoning with rational underpinnings as argued by Appellant. Br. 13.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 3,7, 8,
13—19, 21, 25, 26, and 31—36, which Appellant does not argue separately.
Claims 5, 11, 23, 24, and 29
Claim 5 recites “the audio source is encoded with component
positioning information that relates to the spatial position of the audio
component.” Claims 11, 23, 24, and 29 recite commensurate limitations.
Appellant argues “Aarts merely teaches ... ‘a multi-channel spatial
signal may be encoded, ’ but is wholly silent as to encoding position
information’’ about “the spatial position of the audio component.” Br. 15.
We agree with the Examiner, however, that “Aarts teaches where the
spatial multi-channels of the system are encoded (Aarts et al, para 0082),
where the spatial multi-channels typically includes positions of the channels
i.e. front right channel, front left channel etc.” Ans. 13. For example, Aarts’
system uses position information relating to spatial position of the audio
component to determine whether the audio component should be played by
the front right channel versus the rear left channel versus some combination
of the two. See Aarts 1 82; see also Aarts 84, 2—3.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 5,11, 23, 24, and 29.
Claims 6, 12, and 30
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further recites “decoding the
encoded audio source to obtain each audio component of the plurality of
audio components and the information that relates to the spatial position of
each audio component.” Claims 12 and 30 recite commensurate limitations.
Similar to claim 5, Appellant contends, “While Aarts may disclose
decoding a signal, the reference is wholly silent as to ‘decoding the encoded
7
Appeal 2017-008654
Application 13/969,292
audio source to obtain . . . information that relates to the spatial position of
each audio component.’” Br. 15—16. We are not persuaded for the same
reasons discussed above for claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 12, and 30.
Claims 2, 4, 20, and 22
Claim 2 recites “determining echo, reverb, flange, and phasor values”
and “encoding two or more output channels with the determined echo,
reverb, flange, and phasor values.”
Appellant contends “Vercoe is a deficient reference that cannot cure
the deficiencies of Aarts and Oh.” Br. 17. For the reasons discussed above,
however, we are not persuaded that Aarts and Oh are deficient.
Appellant further contends “the Examiner fails to provide articulate
reasoning as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to . . .
Vercoe and be motivated to conceive the ultrasonic audio system as
claimed” because “Vercoe is directed towards . . . audio . . . transmitted to
the face of the joystick device.” Br. 17. The Examiner, however, explains
“[t]he Vercoe reference is mainly used to teach the concept of modifying
sound effects that include flanging, phasor and reverberation” and the
combination of Aarts, Oh, and Bums has sound effects ripe for
modifications to “flanging, phasor and reverberation.” Ans. 13—14. The
Examiner finds this is particularly tme given Aarts already processes “gain
and delay,” so the addition of Vercoe’s processing of further variables would
be “for the purpose of making the system more dynamic.” Final Act. 9
(citing Vercoe 1:36-45). The cited portion of Vercoe discloses that
“[professional music studios have more nearly universal equipment for
modifying sound. Such equipment typically provides a variety of effects to
8
Appeal 2017-008654
Application 13/969,292
sound signals applied to it. e.g. flanging, phasor, reverberation, filtering,
distortion, and the like.” Vercoe 1:36-40. Given this record, Appellant has
not persuaded us against the Examiner’s proposed combination, which
dynamically makes the sound effects more “professional” and “universal.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, and
claims 4, 20, and 22, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar
reasons. See Br. 17; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 9, 10, 27, and28
Claims 9 and 27 recite “the surround sound configuration comprises
seven channels corresponding to six speakers and one subwoofer or low
frequency speaker.” Claims 10 and 28 recite similar limitations for seven
speakers and one subwoofer.
Appellant argues “Koppens is a deficient reference that cannot cure
the deficiencies of Aarts and Oh.” Br. 18. For the reasons above, however,
we are not persuaded Aarts or Oh are deficient. Appellant concedes
Koppens teaches the additional limitations of claims 9, 10, 27, and 28. Br.
18 (“Koppens merely discloses utilizing a six or seven audio speaker
system”); Final Act. 10; Koppens 170 (“encode a 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 surround
sound signal as stereo signal plus spatial parametric data”).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10, 27, and 28.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—36. No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9