KRONOTON GMBH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 14, 2021

2020000649 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 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.
15/109,676 10/09/2016 Gunnar Kron 50028.120714US 3098
86528 7590 04/14/2021
Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1650
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
MOHAMMED, ASSAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2021 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):
dallen@sgbfirm.com
patent@sgbfirm.com
trosson@sgbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUNNAR KRON
____________

Appeal 2020-000649
Application 15/109,676
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 15–25, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. Claims 1–14 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Kronoton GmbH as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000649
Application 15/109,676

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant states that the present invention “relates to a method for
reproducing audio in a multi-channel sound system comprising two input
signals L and R, wherein output signals are generated for different listening
levels.” Spec. 1.2
Illustrative Claim
Claim 15, which is the only pending independent claim, is illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
15. A device with sound input and sound output channels, as
well as a processor, wherein loudspeakers are assigned to the
device, wherein a software is imported onto the processor,
which contains an algorithm, which is processed by the
processor, wherein the algorithm covering a method for audio
reproduction in a multi-channel sound system comprising two
input signals L and R, wherein output signals are generated for
different listening levels, wherein only one lower listening level
and only one upper listening level are generated, wherein a
maximum of six output signals, with a maximum of two output
signals for the lower listening level and a maximum of four
output signals for the upper listening level, are generated;
wherein stereo signals and/or mono signals are generated
for the signals in the lower listening level and upper listening
level;
wherein loudspeakers are integrated into the device
and/or arranged immediately at the device;
wherein channels are decoded from the input channels
intended for the input signals R and L; and

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Mar. 1, 2019 (“Final
Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Aug. 5, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 4, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the original
Specification filed Oct. 9, 2016 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2020-000649
Application 15/109,676

3
wherein the decoded signals are processed further to
output signals of the upper listening level.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
Rejections on Appeal
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horbach et al. (US 2013/0208895 A1; published Aug. 15,
2013) (“Horbach”), Iida et al. (US 6,122,382; issued Sept. 19, 2000)
(“Iida”), Kanishi et al. (US 5,412,732; issued May 2, 1995) (“Kanishi”), Jin
(US 2006/0062396 A1; published Mar. 23, 2006), Scholz (US
2010/0128880 A1; published May 27, 2010), Lindemann et al. (US
2004/0223622 A1; published Nov. 11, 2004) (“Lindemann”), and Chabanne
et al. (US 2012/0183162 A1; published July 19, 2012) (“Chabanne”). Final
Act. 6–12.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horbach, Iida, Kanishi, Jin, Scholz, Lindemann,
Chabanne, and Takashima et al. (US 6,504,551 B1; issued Jan. 7, 2003)
(“Takashima”). Final Act. 13.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horbach, Iida, Kanishi, Jin, Scholz, Lindemann,
Chabanne, and Walsh et al. (US 2010/0303246 A1; published Dec. 2, 2010)
(“Walsh”). Final Act. 14.
Claims 19 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horbach, Iida, Kanishi, Jin, Scholz, Lindemann, and
Chabanne. Final Act. 16–17.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horbach, Iida, Kanishi, Jin, Scholz, Lindemann,
Chabanne, Vinton et al. (US 2010/0177903 A1; published July 15, 2010)
Appeal 2020-000649
Application 15/109,676

4
(“Vinton”), and Nakamichi (US 2003/0016830 A1; published Jan. 23, 2003).
Final Act. 18–19.
Claims 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horbach, Iida, Kanishi, Jin, Scholz, Lindemann,
Chabanne, and Wu et al. (US 2006/0159190 B1; published July 20, 2006)
(“Wu”). Final Act. 19–20.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horbach, Iida, Kanishi, Jin, Scholz, Lindemann,
Chabanne, and Nakamichi. Final Act. 21.

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the dispositive
issue before us is whether the combined disclosures of Horbach, Iida,
Kanishi, Jin, Scholz, Lindemann, and Chabanne teach or suggest “wherein a
maximum of six output signals, with a maximum of two output signals for
the lower listening level and a maximum of four output signals for the upper
listening level, are generated” (“the disputed limitation”), as recited in claim
15.3
Examiner’s Findings and Appellant’s Arguments
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Kanishi teaches
surround sound stereo with multiple channel outputs, and that the system
produces “two lower listening levels ([F]ig. 1, elements 8 and 10)” and “four
upper listening levels (see [F]ig. 13, elements 26, 27, 28, 29).” Final Act. 8–

3 Appellant makes other arguments in the Appeal Brief with respect to claim
15, but we do not address them because our decision of this issue is
dispositive with respect to claim 15.
Appeal 2020-000649
Application 15/109,676

5
9. The Examiner also finds that Jin teaches “six output channels from the
left and right input channels” and that “[t]he six channels ([F]ig. 2, elements
230a–230f) could be configured to have upper and lower level listening
channels.” Id. at 9. The Examiner further finds that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Horbach, Iida, and Kanishi to
incorporate the six output signal channels of Jin, “wherein the
implementation could be provided for the upper and lower levels as taught
by Kanishi.” Id. at 10.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant contends that the proposed
combination of Jin, Kanishi, Horbach, and Iida “establishes no maximum of
four output signals for an upper level.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that
Jin discloses “outputting six channels,” but “there is no differentiation in Jin
of whether any give channel is to be upper or to be lower.” Id. Appellant
also argues that Horbach “similarly discloses seven channels, but there is no
differentiation therein of whether any given channel is to be upper or lower.”
Id. Appellant further argues that the Examiner makes the differentiation
between upper and lower levels through Kanishi, but the Examiner’s citation
to Figures 1 and 13 of Kanishi, which are different embodiments,
“contradicts the actual teachings of Kanishi.” Id.
In that regard, Appellant notes that in Kanishi’s Figure 1, which is
described as a “first embodiment,” “there are only two speakers for level A
(cited as ‘upper’) and two speakers for level B (cited as ‘lower’).” Id. at 8
(see Kanishi, Fig. 1 (upper speakers 7, 9, and lower speakers 8, 10); 5:4–23).
Appellant also notes that in Kanishi’s Figure 13, which is described as a
“fifth embodiment,” “there are four speakers for level A (cited as ‘upper’)
and four speakers for level B (cited as ‘lower’).” Id. (see Kanishi, Fig. 13
Appeal 2020-000649
Application 15/109,676

6
(upper speakers 26, 28, 30, 32, and lower speakers 27, 29, 31, 33); 11:20–
40). Thus, according to Appellant, “Kanishi alternatively specifies either a
limit of two speakers for both upper and lower levels, or four speakers for
both upper and lower levels,” but does not teach or suggest “four speakers
for an upper level while disclosing two speakers for a corresponding lower
level.” Id.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner “provided no explanation
of a motivation to combine Jin and Kanishi with each other and Horbach and
Iida to arrive at the recited claims.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s statements in the Final Office Action about combining Kanishi
with Horbach and Iida, and combining Jin with Horbach, Iida, and Kanishi,
are conclusory statements, “in contravention to the requirements of KSR that
there is an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning” to explain why
one of skill would combine the references as proposed. Id. at 9–10.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of
ordinary skill would combine the references “is based on nothing further
than a desire to achieve the combination” and “explicitly relies upon
hindsight.” Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that the combination of Jin,
Horbach, and Kanishi would teach the disputed limitation and “it would be
obvious that the six signal channel output as taught by Jin could be
configured in a speaker arrangement as taught by Horbach and Kanishi.”
Ans. 21–22.
Applicable Law
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
Appeal 2020-000649
Application 15/109,676

7
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner’s
burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence.
See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[P]reponderance of
the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making
rejections.”). “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a
factual basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The
Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its
rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id.
“An invention is not obvious just ‘because all of the elements that
comprise the invention were known in the prior art.’” Broadcom Corp. v.
Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Power-One,
Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Instead,
“a finding of obviousness at the time of invention requires a ‘plausible
rational[e] as to why the prior art references would have worked together.’”
Id. (quoting Power-One, 599 F.3d at 1352). Even when an obviousness
argument relies on “combining multiple embodiments from a single
reference, . . . there must be a motivation to make the combination and a
reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful,
otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In
re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Appeal 2020-000649
Application 15/109,676

8
Claims 15–254
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred.
First, we agree with Appellant’s argument that “Kanishi alternatively
specifies either a limit of two speakers for both upper and lower levels, or
four speakers for both upper and lower levels.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing
Kanishi, Figs. 1, 13). In that regard, Appellant argues, and we agree, that:
The Examiner’s citation to Figure 1 for the two lower speakers
ignores that Figure 1 teaches that, when a maximum of two
lower speakers are provided, a maximum of two upper speakers
are provided, instead of four upper speakers. The Examiner’s
citation to Figure 13 for the four upper speakers ignores that
Figure 13 teaches that, when a maximum of four upper speakers
are provided, a maximum of four lower speakers are provided,
instead of two lower speakers.

Id. Accordingly, we also agree with Appellant that the cited portions of
Kanishi do not explicitly “teach, suggest, or disclose four speakers for an
upper level while disclosing two speakers for a corresponding lower level.”
Id.
Second, we agree with Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s
statements concerning combining the references are conclusory, and lack
specificity and evidentiary support for why a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined the references as proposed by the Examiner,
including why a skilled artisan would have combined the separate
embodiments of Kanishi as in the disputed limitation of claim 15, with a
reasonable expectation of success. We determine, therefore, that the

4 Appellant argues claims 15–25 together, focusing on claim 15. Appeal Br.
6–10. Accordingly, we select claim 15 as representative, and the remaining
claims stand or fall with claim 15. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Appeal 2020-000649
Application 15/109,676

9
Examiner failed to meet the requirements of KSR to provide “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.”
Third, we determine the Examiner’s finding that “it would be obvious
that the six signal channel output as taught by Jin could be configured in a
speaker arrangement as taught by Horbach and Kanishi” lacks evidentiary
support and does not adequately explain why the references would have
been combined as in the disputed limitation of claim 15. See Ans. 22;
Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have
made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or
modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”); see also In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“The mere fact that the prior
art could be so modified would not have made the modification obvious
unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.”).
Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to find the Examiner
erred because the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Horbach,
Iida, Kanishi, Jin, Scholz, Lindemann, and Chabanne teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation of claim 15 by a preponderance of the evidence. See
Caveney, 761 F.2d at 674. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 15, and dependent claims 16–25, for obviousness under § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
15 103 Horbach, Iida,
Kanishi, Jin, Scholz,
15
Appeal 2020-000649
Application 15/109,676

10
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Lindemann,
Chabanne
16 103 Horbach, Iida,
Kanishi, Jin, Scholz,
Lindemann,
Chabanne,
Takashima
16
17, 18 103 Horbach, Iida,
Kanishi, Jin, Scholz,
Lindemann,
Chabanne, Walsh
17, 18
19, 25 103 Horbach, Iida,
Kanishi, Jin, Scholz,
Lindemann,
Chabanne
19, 25
20 103 Horbach, Iida,
Kanishi, Jin, Scholz,
Lindemann,
Chabanne, Vinton,
Nakamichi
20
21–23 103 Horbach, Iida,
Kanishi, Jin, Scholz,
Lindemann,
Chabanne, Wu
21–23
24 103 Horbach, Iida,
Kanishi, Jin, Scholz,
Lindemann,
Chabanne,
Nakamichi
24
Overall
Outcome
15–25

REVERSED