Ex Parte Spille et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

10530881 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte JENS SPILLE and JURGEN SCHMIDT _____________ Appeal 2010-005248 Application 10/530,881 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON V. MORGAN, and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 16, 17, 19-23 and 25-29. Br. 3. Claims 1-15, 18 and 24 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Appeal 2010-005248 Application 10/530,881 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to coding and decoding a presentation description of audio signals, especially for describing the presentation of sound sources encoded as audio objects according to the MPEG-4 Audio standard. See Spec. 1:5-10. Claim 16 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 16. Method for coding a presentation description of an audio signal, comprising: assigning a value to a first non-point sound source using said audio signal; generating for said first non-point sound source a parametric description, said parametric description including said assigned value in a field specifying decorrelation information; incrementing said value for an additional non-point sound source using the same audio signal; and generating, for said additional non-point sound source, a parametric description, said parametric description including said incremented value in a field specifying decorrelation information to specify a different decorrelation for said additional non-point sound source. REFERENCE Guillaume Potard et al., Using XML Schemas to Create and Encode Interactive 3-D Audio Scenes for Multimedia and Virtual Reality Applications, 4th Int’l Workshop on Distributed Communities on the Web (DCW ’02), pp. 193-203 (Apr. 3-5, 2002) (“Potard”). Appeal 2010-005248 Application 10/530,881 3 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 16, 17, 19-23, and 25-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Potard. Ans. 3-6. ISSUE 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Potard teaches or suggests the following limitation: “incrementing said value for an additional non-point sound source using the same audio signal [as the first non-point sound source and] said incremented value in a field specifying decorrelation information to specify a different decorrelation for said additional non-point sound source” (Independent Claim 16)? ANALYSIS Appellants present arguments with respect to claim 16. Claim 16 recites “incrementing said value for an additional non-point sound source using the same audio signal” as the first non-point sound source. Appellants argue that “Potard does not even suggest the need to apply a decorrelation where the same audio signal is used for more than one non- point sound source” because Potard discloses “a group of choristers is created from the same singer-object by repeating it several times after a pitch transformation is applied.” Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellants argue that Potard teaches using different members of the choir as each individual sound source. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by this argument. Appeal 2010-005248 Application 10/530,881 4 Potard recites that “a group of choristers can be created from the same singer-object repeated several times and a pitch transformation applied.” Potard, § 2.3.1. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that Potard suggests that in order to create a group of choristers from a single singer, a pitch transformation would need to be applied to each repetition of the singer to create the effect of several singers singing. Ans. 7-8. This single singer would be a single, i.e. the same, audio source for each repetition. However, we find that the repetition of the singer with a pitch transformation applies represents a second, i.e. more than one, sound source. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Potard suggests applying a decorrelation where the same audio signal is used for more than one non-point sound source. Id. Appellants also argue that “Potard does not mention or suggest that the parameters are for assigning one of several decorrelations” because “the only purpose of the parameters described by Potard is to define the objects position as correctly as possible.” Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by this argument. Claim 16 requires an “incremented value in a field specifying decorrelation information to specify a different decorrelation for said additional non-point sound source.” However, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “defining the object position is one way to define the sound source being different (decorrelated) from other sound source because its position would alter the sound effect from this sound source due to sound reflection from nearby surfaces (such as walls, ceiling, floor, furniture and sound equipment and so on).” Ans. 8. Additionally, Table 1 in Potard provides several parameters for Appeal 2010-005248 Application 10/530,881 5 decorrelation. See, Potard § 2.1, Table 1. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Potard suggests assigning one of several decorrelations. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Appellants argument that it would not be obvious to increment a value in a field specifying a different decorrelation. Br. 7. Potard recites that “a group of choristers can be created from the same singer-object repeated several times and a pitch transformation applied.” Potard, § 2.3.1. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that Potard suggests that in order to create a group of choristers from a single singer, a transformation would need to be applied to each repetition of the singer to create the effect of several singers singing. Ans. 8-9. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that in order to create the choral sound a new transformed pitch would need to be incremented, i.e. higher or lower, than the previous pitch. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Potard suggests increment a value in a field specifying a different decorrelation. Appellants further argue Potard does not disclose transmitting information to apply different decorrelations rather than information to apply each specific decorrelation. Br. 7. We are not persuaded by this argument. Claim 16 recites an “assigned value in a field specifying decorrelation information” and “incremented value in a field specifying decorrelation information to specify a different decorrelation.” Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the claim scope. The claim does not require that the information is generic to multiple decorrelations, rather the claim recites two separate values specifying different information. Appeal 2010-005248 Application 10/530,881 6 For the reasons stated above, we agree with the Examiner that Potard discloses “incrementing said value for an additional non-point sound source using the same audio signal [as the first non-point sound source and] said incremented value in a field specifying decorrelation information to specify a different decorrelation for said additional non-point sound source.” Ans. 4. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 16. Claims 17, 19-23, and 25-29 are not separately argued and thus fall with claim 16. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 17, 19-23, and 25-29. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16, 17, 19-23 and 25-29 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED msc