HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2022

2020005575 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 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. 15/989,637 05/25/2018 Ulrich Horbach HARM 0325 PUS1 8391 109676 7590 01/26/2022 Brooks Kushman P.C./Harman 1000 Town Center Twenty Second Floor Southfield, MI 48075 EXAMINER GANMAVO, KUASSI A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2022 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ULRICH HORBACH and ANANDHI RAMESH ____________ Appeal 2020-005575 Application 15/989,6371 Technology Center 2600 _______________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., HUNG H. BUI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 12-17 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Harman International Industries, Incorporated is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 We refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed February 3, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed July 24, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed June 25, 2020 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed August 2, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and Specification filed May 25, 2018 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2020-005575 Application 15/989,637 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to “an audio surround processing system [] [shown in Figure 1 that] receives an audio signal having at least two channels (such as left and right audio channels) and generates a number of surround sound signals in which the amount of artificially generated ambient energy is at least partially controlled in real-time by estimated ambient energy that is contained in the source signal.” Spec. ¶ 4. Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. Figure 1 depicts audio/video receiver (AVR) 102 having an audio surround processing system (ASPS) 104 within listening room 110. Spec. ¶ 23. As shown in Figure 1, “the ASPS 104 may process an incoming audio signal, such as a two-channel stereo signal to generate additional audio Appeal 2020-005575 Application 15/989,637 3 channels, such as five additional audio channels, in addition to the original left audio signal and right audio channel signal.” Spec. ¶ 24. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An audio surround processing system comprising: a memory; and an audio signal processor in communication with the memory and configured to: divide a source audio signal having at least two audio channels into a first set of components in a first frequency range and a second set of components in a second frequency range, where the source audio signal has a predetermined source sample rate, and the first set of components is sampled at predetermined sample rate that is less than the source sample rate, transform the first set of components from a time domain to a frequency domain; and estimate an ambient energy level using only the first set of components with the first set of components being in the frequency domain. (Claims App.). REJECTIONS3 AND REFERENCES (1) Claims 1-20 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-24 of Appellant’s earlier US Patent No. 9,986,356; issued May 29, 2018. Final Act. 4. 3 Claim 9 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over cited prior art. Final Act. 16-17. The Examiner has withdrawn the obviousness rejection and indicated that claim 9 is conditionally allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 3. Ans. 2. However, we note that claim 9 is conditionally allowable only if a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the non-statutory Appeal 2020-005575 Application 15/989,637 4 (2) Claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1034 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle et al. (US 8,588,427 B2; issued Nov. 19, 2013; “Uhle”), Goodwin (US 2009/0252341 A1; published Oct. 8, 2009), and Vaananen et al. (US 2007/0288235 A1; published Dec. 13, 2007; “Vaananen”). Final Act. 7-13. (2) Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, and Vaananen. Final Act. 13-14. (4) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Vinton et al. (US 2010/0177903 A1; published Jul. 15, 2010; “Vinton”). Final Act. 14-15. (5) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Neoran (US 8,605,914 B2; issued Dec. 10, 2013). Final Act. 15-16. (6) Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Vickers (US 2010/0296672 A1; published Nov. 25, 2010). Final Act. 17- 18. (7) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Avendano et al. (US 7,412,380 B1; published Aug. 12, 2008; “Avendano”). Final Act. 18-19. obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-24 of Appellant’s earlier US Patent No. 9,986,356 B2. 4 In the Final Act., the Examiner referred to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as the statutory basis to support the rejection. However, that reference was an inadvertently error and we will consider the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Uhle, Goodwin, and Vaananen. Final Act. 7. Appeal 2020-005575 Application 15/989,637 5 ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for Examiner error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 and adopt as our own the findings set forth by the Examiner for these claims to the extent consistent with our analysis herein. Final Act. 7-19; Ans. 2-8. Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection At the outset, we note Appellant does not address the obviousness- type double patenting rejection of claims 1-20 based on claims 1-24 of Appellant’s earlier US Patent No. 9,986,356 B2; issued May 29, 2018. Final Act. 4. As such, the final rejection of these claims on the ground of non- statutory double patenting over claims 1-24 of Appellant’s earlier US Patent No. 9,986,356 B2 is summarily affirmed. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, and 18-20 Claim 1 In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the combination of Uhle, Goodwin, and Vaananen teaches or suggests every element of base claim 1. Final Act. 7-8. Of relevance, the Examiner finds Vaananen teaches the disputed limitation: where the source audio signal has a predetermined source sample rate, and the first set of components is sampled at predetermined sample rate that is less than the source sample rate Appeal 2020-005575 Application 15/989,637 6 recited in claim 1. Id. 8 (citing Vaananen ¶ 21). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Uhle and Goodwin. Nor does Appellant challenge the Examiner’s reason to combine these references. Appellant even acknowledges Vaananen teaches that an input digital signal is separated and downsampled into at least two downsampled subband signals. Appeal Br. 4. However, Appellant contends (1) Vaananen’s downsampled subband signals have “the same sampling rate” and, as such, (2) Vaananen does not teach or suggest “the first set of components [from the source audio signal] [that] is sampled at predetermined sample rate that is less than the source sample rate” as recited in claim 1. Id. We do not agree with Appellant. Vaananen teaches that (1) an input digital signal is sampled at a sampling rate FS, and (2) the first set of down- sampled sub-band signals is sampled at a sampling rate FSI where FSI ˂FS, that is lower than the sampling rate FS of the input digital signal. Vaananen ¶ 12. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Vaananen notes that digital input signal interpreted as source signal is separated into two downsampled subbands signals. The subbands signals are interpreted as first and second set of components. Vaananen at ¶¶ 12, 21. Moreover, Vaananen describes that the sampling rate of the subbands signals is less than the sampling rate of the digital input signal. Ans. 4 citing (Vaananen ¶¶ 11, 12, 21). In the Reply, Appellant appears to argue that Vaananen’s input digital signal is not the same as the claimed “source signal.” Reply Br. 2. However, Appellant’s argument is without merit. The claim term “source Appeal 2020-005575 Application 15/989,637 7 audio signal” can be broadly, but reasonably, interpreted to encompass Vaananen’s input digital signal. For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, 8, which are not argued separately. Claims 10 and 18 Base claim 10 is slightly narrower than claim 1, and further requires generating “an ambience estimate control coefficient using an estimated ambient energy contained in only the first set of components, the first set of components being in the frequency domain.” Base claim 18 recites similar limitations. In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the combination of Uhle, Goodwin, and Vaananen teaches or suggests every element of base claims 10 and 18. Final Act. 9-12. Of particular relevance, the Examiner finds Goodwin teaches the disputed limitation: generate an ambience estimate control coefficient using an estimated ambient energy contained in only the first set of components, the first set of components being in the frequency domain recited in claims 10 and 18. Id. 9 (citing Goodwin ¶ 12). Appellant contends Goodwin simply teaches “a method for processing a multichannel audio signal to determine primary and ambient components of the signal,” but is silent regarding any “ambient estimate control coefficient,” let alone one generated “using an estimated ambient energy contained in only the first set of components” as recited in claims 10 and 18. Appeal Br. 5 (citing Goodwin ¶ 12). Appeal 2020-005575 Application 15/989,637 8 We disagree. There is no requirement that the prior art must use the same words to describe a claim element in order to be deemed as teaching or disclosing that claim element. “[T]he reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Instead, prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As recognized by the Examiner, Goodwin teaches (1) estimating ambient components and (2) adjusting a balance between the primary and ambient vectors to generate modified primary and ambient components. Ans. 4 (citing Goodwin ¶¶ 12, 55, 56). According to Goodwin, the ambient components are estimated, via ambient unit vectors and expansion coefficients. Goodwin ¶¶ 36, 48, 54. These ambient coefficients are also described in the context of Uhle’s extraction of an ambient signal, shown in Figures 13, 14, 15A-15B, 16, 17, 18A-18B. Based on the teachings of Goodwin and Uhle and the general knowledge of those skilled in the art, we agree with the Examiner that a person skilled in the art would understand that Goodwin is said to teach the disputed limitation: “generate an ambience estimate control coefficient using an estimated ambient energy contained in only the first set of components, the first set of components being in the frequency domain” as recited in claim 10. For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 10 and 18 and their respective dependent claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20, which are not argued separately. Appeal 2020-005575 Application 15/989,637 9 In summary, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, and 18-20 based on the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, and Vaananen. For the same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of (1) claims 4 and 5 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, and Vaananen; (2) claim 6 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Vinton; (3) claim 7 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Neoran; (4) claims 13 and 14 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Vickers; and (5) claim 17 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Avendano. CONCLUSION On this record, Appellant does not show the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) claims 1-20 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-24 of Appellant’s earlier US Patent No. 9,986,356; (2) claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, and 18-20 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, and Vaananen; (3) claims 4 and 5 stas obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, and Vaananen; (4) claim 6 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Vinton; (5) claim 7 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Neoran; (6) claims 13 and 14 as obvious over the combined teachings of Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Vickers; and (7) claim 17 as obvious over Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, and Avendano. Appeal 2020-005575 Application 15/989,637 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 8, 10- 12, 15-16, 18-20 102(b) Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen 1-3, 8, 10- 12, 15-16, 18-20 4-5 103 Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen 4-5 6 103 Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, Vinton 6 7 103 Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, Neoram 7 9 103 Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, Avendano 9 13, 14 103 Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, Vickers 13, 14 17 103 Uhle, Goodwin, Vaananen, Avendano, Vinton 17 Overall Outcome 1-20 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED