QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2022

2020004205 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2022)

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. 15/804,718 11/06/2017 Moo Young Kim 1414-404US01/174287 1113 15150 7590 01/31/2022 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER GANMAVO, KUASSI A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2022 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte MOO YOUNG KIM, NILS GÜNTHER PETERS, and DIPANJAN SEN ________________ Appeal 2020-004205 Application 15/804,718 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-26, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004205 Application 15/804,718 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “layered intermediate compression for higher order ambisonic (HOA) audio data.” Abstract. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Couture US 2009/0314554 A1 Dec. 24, 2009 Peters ’803 US 2015/0213803 A1 July 30, 2015 Peters ’809 US 2015/0213809 A1 July 30, 2015 Peters ’736 US 2015/0341736 A1 Nov. 26, 2015 Xu US 2016/0063987 A1 Mar. 3, 2016 Peters ’001 US 2016/0099001 A1 Apr. 7, 2016 Keiler WO 2017/017262 A1 Feb. 2, 2017 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-26 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23-26 102(a)(1) Peters ’809 Final Act. 3-9 3, 15 103 Peters ’809, Peters ’803 Final Act. 9-12 4, 16 103 Peters ’809, Peters ’736 Final Act. 12-14 6, 18 103 Peters ’809, Keiler Final Act. 14-15 7, 19 103 Peters ’809, Peters ’001 Final Act. 15-16 11 103 Peters ’809, Couture Final Act. 16 12, 22 103 Peters ’809, Xu Final Act. 16-17 Appeal 2020-004205 Application 15/804,718 3 ANALYSIS Claim 13, which is representative with respect to claims 1-26, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketed numeral added). 13. A method to compress higher order ambisonic audio data representative of a soundfield, the method comprising: decomposing higher order ambisonic coefficients representative of a soundfield into a predominant sound component and a corresponding spatial component, the corresponding spatial component representative of the directions, shape, and width of the predominant sound component, and defined in the spherical harmonic domain; specifying, in a bitstream conforming to an intermediate compression format, a subset of the higher order ambisonic coefficients that represent an ambient component of the soundfield; and [1] specifying, in the bitstream and irrespective of a determination of a minimum number of ambient channels and a number of elements to specify in the bitstream for the spatial component, all elements of the spatial component. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 13 as obvious, the Examiner finds that the Mode 0 configuration of Peters ’809-a configuration in which “a complete V-vector length is transmitted in the VVecData field” (Peters ’809 ¶ 106)- discloses recitation [1]-“specifying, in the bitstream and irrespective of a determination of a minimum number of ambient channels and a number of elements to specify in the bitstream for the spatial component, all elements of the spatial component.” Final Act. 5 (citing Peters ’809 ¶¶ 105-06); Ans. 2. Appellant acknowledges that Peters ’809 discloses a Mode 0 configuration, but Appellant argues Peters ’809 fails to indicate “when Appeal 2020-004205 Application 15/804,718 4 Mode 0 is invoked and certainly does not disclose or suggest that such a mode is invoked ‘irrespective of a determination of a minimum number of ambient channels and a number of elements to specify in the bitstream for the spatial component.’” Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that Peters ’809 actually teaches away from compressing higher order ambisonic audio data representative of a soundfield recitation with the limitations of recitation [1] because Peters ’809 includes a coefficient reduction unit 46 that may produce a “minimum number of ambient channels . . . , a reduced V[k] vector that does not include the coefficients corresponding to the identified minimum number of ambient channels that provide little to no directional information.” Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 5-6. Appellant argues that to “select between Mode 0 and Modes 1 and 2, Peters necessarily implies that there is a determination of the minimum number of ambient channels and a number of elements to specify in the bitstream for the spatial component, as it would be necessary to choose between Modes 0-2 in order to properly compress the bitstream.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error. As Peters ’809 teaches, “coefficient reduction unit 46 [specifies] the syntax element . . . [that] comprises two bits indicating which of the three configuration modes were selected for specifying the non-zero set of coefficients of the reduced foreground V[k] vectors 55 to represent the directional aspects of the distinct component.” Peters ’809 ¶ 105. That is, coefficient reduction unit 46 determines whether to select Mode 0, in which a complete, unreduced V-vector length is transmitted, Mode 1, in which “the elements of the V-vector associated with the minimum number of coefficients” are transmitted, or Mode 2, in which “the elements of the V-vector associated Appeal 2020-004205 Application 15/804,718 5 with the minimum number of coefficients for the Ambient HOA coefficients are not transmitted.” Id. ¶ 106. The only configuration modes in Peters ’809 that have a basis in the minimum number of ambient channels are configuration Mode 1 and configuration Mode 2. Mode 0, which transmits a complete V-vector length, is not based on a minimum number of ambient channels. Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s argument that “Peters ’809 necessarily implies that there is a determination of . . . a number of elements to specify in the bitstream for the spatial component” (Appeal Br. 11), the coefficient reduction unit 46 of Peters ’809 actually determines “the coefficients in the foreground V[k] vectors . . . having little to no directional information” (Peters ’809 ¶ 104). That is, Peters ’809 chooses Mode 0 based not on the number of spatial component elements to specify, but rather based on the number of spatial component elements that can be omitted. Thus, in Peters ’809, if none of the coefficients in the foreground V[k] vectors have little to no directional information, then the coefficient reduction unit 46 would choose Mode 0 and encode all the spatial components. Ans. 3 (“In mode 0, there is no reduction of foreground vector.”). Choosing Mode 0 in such a circumstance would neither be based on either a determination of a minimum number of ambient channels (a determination only relevant to Modes 1 and 2) nor be based on a number of elements to specify in the bitstream for the spatial component. Rather, the elements that do not have to be specified is what would drive the choice of Mode 0. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Peters ’809 discloses recitation [1]. Appellant presents additional arguments for the first time in the Reply Brief (see pp. 8-10). But these new arguments are untimely, and Appellant Appeal 2020-004205 Application 15/804,718 6 does not show that these new arguments are responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 13, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections of claims 1-12 and 14-26, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons to those argued with respect to claim 13. Appeal Br. 14- 19. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23-26 102(a)(1) Peters ’809 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23-26 3, 15 103 Peters ’809, Peters ’803 3, 15 4, 16 103 Peters ’809, Peters ’736 4, 16 6, 18 103 Peters ’809, Keiler 6, 18 7, 19 103 Peters ’809, Peters ’001 7, 19 11 103 Peters ’809, Couture 11 12, 22 103 Peters ’809, Xu 12, 22 Overall Outcome 1-26 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking 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