null

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 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