null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 26, 2019

14998094 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2019)

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.
14/998,094 12/26/2015 Kalle I. Makinen P93934 9288
104333 7590 11/26/2019
International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C.
13231 Champion Forest Drive
Suite 410
Houston, TX 77069
EXAMINER
FISCHER, MARK L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2019 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):
Intel_Docketing@iiplg.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KALLE I. MAKINEN, MIKKO KURSULA, and
DAVID ISHERWOOD
Appeal 2019-000794
Application 14/998,094
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, 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.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000794
Application 14/998,094

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to microphone beamforming using
distance and environmental information. Title. Claims 1 and 3–25 are
pending; claims 1, 11, 17, and 21 are independent. Appeal Br. 2. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
one or more microphones to receive audio signals;
a distance detector to determine a distance of an audio
source from the one or more microphones;
a delay detector to calculate a delay term based on the
determined distance, wherein the distance is to indicate an error
between a planar audio wave model and a spherical sound wave
model and the delay term is to correct the error; and
a processor to combine the audio signals with the delay
term and perform audio beamforming on the audio signals
combined with the delay term.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Name Reference Date
Hsu US 2005/0111674 A1 May 26, 2005
Pompei US 2005/0248233 A1 Nov. 10, 2005
Itabashi US 2008/0187148 A1 Aug. 7, 2008
Visser US 2013/0156207 A1 June 20, 2013
Kim US 2014/0362253 A1 Dec. 11, 2014
Wilson US 2016/0182997 A1 June 23, 2016

Claims 1, 3–5, 11–14, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Itabashi. Final Act. 2.
Claims 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kim, Itabashi, Visser, and Pompei. Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2019-000794
Application 14/998,094

3
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim, Itabashi, and Hsu. Final Act. 11.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim, Itabashi, Wilson, Visser, and Pompei. Final Act. 12.
Claims 10, and 21–25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim, Itabashi, and Pompei. Final Act. 14.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but did not make are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with
Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis
below.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding independent claim 1 to
be obvious in view of the cited references, because “[n]either Kim nor
Itabashi discloses a planar wave model” (Appeal Br. 14) and “Itabashi
would not disclose any ‘error between a planar audio wave model and a
spherical sound wave model’” (Appeal Br. 17). Appellant further contends
the Examiner’s analysis is in incorrect, because “[a]t the core of [the
Examiner’s] assertions is the Examiner’s interpretation that a planar wave
model is equivalent to a ‘same distance for all microphones,’” but “a planar
wave model is not limited to a scenario of having a ‘same distance for all the
microphones.’” Appeal Br. 14.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error, for the following reasons.

Appeal 2019-000794
Application 14/998,094

4
One or More Microphones Limitation
To the extent Appellant’s arguments reference the claims, we find the
arguments are not commensurate with the claim scope.2 For instance,
Appellant refers to a “microphone array” (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 14, 15);
claim 1, in contrast, recites “one or more microphones” (emphasis added).
Thus, claim 1 includes an apparatus having one microphone. See, e.g.,
Abstract (“The apparatus includes a microphone or a plurality of
microphones.”). Given the broadest reasonable construction of claim 1,
Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding that the recited
“planar wave model” would be limited to a given distance for “all of the
microphones,” as the single microphone would result in a single distance at
that microphone. Final Act. 3; see Appeal Br. 15.
Consistent with the Specification, claim 1’s error is a “distance
dependent error” that is “introduced by assuming that the sound wave is
planar instead of spherical.” Spec. ¶ 28. The prior art teaches one
microphone, as claimed, that is located where the spherical sound wave
model and the planar audio wave model would meet. See, e.g., microphone
at location X0 of Itabashi’s Figure 6; compare microphone 204c of
Appellant’s Figure 2, which is located at the point where the two audio
models (210F and 212F) cross. At this one microphone—located at the
overlap between the two audio models—there will not be a “distance
dependent error” because there is no “difference [] between the planar and
spherical sound wave models.” Spec. ¶ 28. Thus, claim 1’s recitation of a
“distance [that] is to indicate an error between a planar audio wave model

2 We review claim construction de novo. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Boston
Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Appeal 2019-000794
Application 14/998,094

5
and a spherical sound wave model,” for a single microphone, would indicate
an error of zero.
Accordingly, claim 1 encompasses an indication of no error between
audio models, and we agree with the Examiner that one of skill in the art
would understand the claim to be obvious in view of the combined teachings
of Kim and Itabashi’s microphone distance calculations. See Final Act. 18,
19.

Indicate an Error Limitation
Furthermore, Appellant does not persuasively show the Examiner errs
in finding the combination of cited references teaches or suggests the claim
limitations when construed to encompass more than one microphone. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 17, 18; Ans. 14. The “distance,” as recited by claim 1, is
determined “from the one or more microphones” and “is to indicate an error
between a planar audio wave model and a spherical wave model.” The
Examiner correctly cites both Kim and Itabashi for determining a distance
from one or more microphones. See Final Act. 3; Kim ¶ 27; Itabashi ¶ 92.
The Examiner further finds Itabashi teaches the determined distance
“corrects the error of the planar wave model distance so that the spherical
wave model distances are obtained.” Final Act. 22. We agree. Itabashi
teaches a spherical sound wave model (Itabashi, Fig. 6) that is different from
a planar audio wave model (Itabashi, Fig. 5). See Itabashi ¶¶ 90, 93; Reply
Br. 6 (“Itabashi does describe a ‘plane wave sound source’ in Fig. 5.
However, Fig. 6 of Itabashi is simply an illustration of a point sound
source.”). Itabashi further teaches a microphone distance (Δdn) is
determined differently when using the spherical sound wave model
Appeal 2019-000794
Application 14/998,094

6
compared to when using the planar audio wave model. Itabashi ¶ 92; see
also Itabashi Expressions 8 and 11 (showing the equations used for each
respective distance). The spherical sound wave model distance is
“substituted into the [delay term] expression” that was used for the planar
model, to determine a delay term specific to the spherical sound wave
model. Itabashi ¶ 93, Expression 9.
Because the microphone distance is calculated differently between the
two audio models (compare Itabashi ¶¶ 89, 92), the calculated delay terms
(Δtn) will be different between the models. This difference (in microphone
distances) teaches or suggests the spherical sound wave model distance will
“indicate an error between a planar audio wave model and a spherical sound
wave model,” within the meaning of the claim under a broad but reasonable
interpretaion.3 See Ans. 7 (finding Itabashi teaches “each signal to correct
the error through changing the timing relation among the signals as taught in
¶ 0090-0093 of Itabashi.”); see also Final Act. 3.

Claim Grouping
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the limitations of
claim 1 to be obvious in view of the combined teachings of Kim and
Itabashi. See Final Act. 3, 4. Claim 11 includes similar limitations, but
recites “apply[ing] a compensation term to audio” instead of claim 1’s

3 We note claim 1 requires only that the distance indicates an error, not that
a particular error is calculated. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05
(CCPA 1969) (During prosecution, claims are construed broadly but
reasonably, as “the applicant may then amend [the] claims, the thought being
to reduce the possibility that, after the patent is granted, the claims may be
interpreted as giving broader coverage than is justified.”)
Appeal 2019-000794
Application 14/998,094

7
recitation of combining audio signals with the delay term. Claim 11 further
recites the “compensation term is a microphone-specific delay term and is
based, at least partially on the distance.” Claim 21, similarly, recites a
“correction term of the audio signals based upon, at least in part, the
distance.” We agree with the Examiner the combination of cited references
teaches or suggests the recited compensation and correction terms, because
Kim teaches “determining a weight for sound beamforming using at least
one of time delay and phase delay corresponding to the second distance”
(Kim ¶ 27) and Itabashi teaches “a difference Δtn between a time necessary .
. . is given using the difference Δdn in distance” (Itabashi ¶ 90). See Final
Act. 5, 15; Ans. 14. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
finding the limitations of claims 11 and 21 to be obvious in view of the
combined teachings of the cited references. See Final Act. 5, 6, 14–16.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and
21. Appellant does not present additional substantive arguments for the
remaining claims. See Appeal Br. 18–25. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims for the same reasons.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 11–
14, 17–20
103 Kim, Itabashi 1, 3–5, 11–
14, 17–20

6–8 103 Kim, Itabashi, Visser 6–8
9 103 Kim, Itabashi, Hsu 9
15, 16 103 Kim, Itabashi, Wilson,
Visser, Pompei
15, 16
Appeal 2019-000794
Application 14/998,094

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed
10, 21–25 103 Kim, Itabashi, and
Pompei
10, 21–25
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–25
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