QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 11, 2022

2021001310 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 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. 16/264,115 01/31/2019 Andre Gustavo P. Schevciw 1414-494US01/181973 5396 15150 7590 03/11/2022 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER MOHAMMED, ASSAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/11/2022 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 ANDRE GUSTAVO P. SCHEVCIW and NILS GUNTHER PETERS ____________ Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-24, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 2 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to “processing of media data, such as audio data” and, more particularly, to “auditory aspects of the user experience of computer-mediated reality systems, including virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR), augmented reality (AR), computer vision, and graphics system “ Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4.2 Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A device configured to support unified audio rendering, the device comprising: an audio decoder configured to decode, from a bitstream, first audio data for a time frame and second audio data for the time frame; a memory configured to store the first audio data and the second audio data; and one or more processors configured to: render the first audio data into first spatial domain audio data for playback by virtual speakers at a set of virtual speaker locations; render the second audio data into second spatial domain audio data for playback by the virtual speakers at the set of virtual speaker locations; mix the first spatial domain audio data and the second spatial domain audio data to obtain mixed spatial domain audio data; and convert the mixed spatial domain audio data to scene-based audio data. 2 We refer to the Specification filed Jan. 31, 2019 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed Mar. 23, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed July 21, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Oct. 27, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 14, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Name Reference Date Mundt et al. (“Mundt”) US 2011/0211702 A1 Sept. 1, 2011 McCary US 2013/0322514 A1 Dec. 5, 2013 Najaf-Zadeh et al. (“Najaf-Zadeh”) US 2016/0241980 A1 Aug. 18, 2016 Vicinus et al. (“Vicinus”) US 9,865,274 B1 Jan. 9, 2018 Allen US 9,992,602 B1 June 5, 2018 Peterson et al. (“Peterson”) US 2018/0154253 A1 June 7, 2018 Enzner et al. (“Enzner”) “Advanced System Options for Binaural Rendering of Ambisonic Format” 2013 REJECTIONS Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to point out and distinctly claim the invention. Final Act. 5-8. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mundt, McCary, and Najaf-Zadeh. Final Act. 10, 19. Claims 12, 14, 15, 18, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mundt and Najaf-Zadeh. Final Act. 12, 27. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mundt, McCary, Najaf-Zadeh, and Peterson. Final Act. 18. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mundt, McCary, Najaf-Zadeh, and Allen. Final Act. 23. Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 4 Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mundt, McCary, Najaf-Zadeh, and Gerald Enzner. Final Act. 24. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mundt, McCary, Najaf-Zadeh, and Vicinus. Final Act. 24. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mundt, Najaf-Zadeh, and Peterson. Final Act. 26. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mundt, Najaf-Zadeh, and Allen. Final Act. 31. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mundt, Najaf-Zadeh, and Gerald Enzner. Final Act. 32. Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mundt, Najaf-Zadeh, and Vicinus. Final Act. 32. ANALYSIS § 112(b) Rejection - Indefiniteness Claim 23 recites (emphases added): A device configured to support unified audio rendering, the device comprising: means for decoding, from a bitstream, first audio data for a time frame and second audio data for the time frame; means for rendering the first audio data into first spatial domain audio data for playback by virtual speakers at a set of virtual speaker locations; means for rendering the second audio data into second spatial domain audio data for playback by the virtual speakers at the set of virtual speaker locations; means for mixing the first spatial domain audio data and the second spatial domain audio data to obtain mixed spatial domain audio data; and Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 5 means for converting the mixed spatial domain audio data to scene-based audio data. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the Examiner interprets these limitations as “generic placeholder[s],” which are “not preceded by . . . structural modifiers.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that the Specification fails to disclose “structure(s) responsible for performing the function limitation[s]” or “structural elements within which the functional blocks would be processed.” Id. at 6-7. According to the Examiner, the Specification’s description of implementing the functions in hardware, software, or firmware, with the claimed “means for” that “do not describe a structure hardware which the intent of the code or data signal is processed . . . is a pure data being processed and no actual hardware for processing the data in the device.” Ans. 33 (citing Spec. ¶ 122). Accordingly, the Examiner finds that claim 23 fails to “particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.” Final Act. 7. Appellant argues that, when the supporting disclosure includes hardware, software, or a combination of both to implement functionality, and the claim language recites “means” for performing the function, then the Examiner should not construe the limitation as covering pure software implementation, and therefore “claim 23 particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing MPEP § 2181(II)(B)); see also Reply Br. 4-5. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. “A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention.” Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “As the Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 6 statutory language of ‘particular[ity]’ and ‘distinct[ness]’ indicates, claims are required to be cast in clear-as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite-terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the protections of the patent, and what is not.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alterations in original). Cited Section 2181 of the MPEP states that “[o]ften the supporting disclosure for a computer-implemented invention discusses the implementation of the functionality of the invention through hardware, software, or a combination of both,” and that 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) “requires that the recited ‘means’ for performing the specified function shall be construed to cover the corresponding ‘structure or material’ described in the specification,” and that the limitation should not be construed as “covering pure software implementation.” MPEP § 2181(II)(B). Here, the Specification discloses that, “[i]n one or more examples, the functions described may be implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination thereof.” Spec. ¶ 122 (emphases added). As argued by Appellant, and as supported by the MPEP, the claimed “means for” implementing the claimed functionality includes a hardware implementation. Therefore, the claim should not be deemed as indefinite because there is corresponding structure (i.e., “hardware”) disclosed in the Specification. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 23. § 103 Rejection Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-24 Claim 1 recites “decod[ing], from a bitstream, first audio data for a time frame and second audio data for the time frame” and “mix[ing] the first Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 7 spatial domain audio data and the second spatial domain audio data to obtain mixed spatial domain audio data; and convert[ing] the mixed spatial domain audio data to a scene-based audio data.” The Examiner finds that Mundt’s encoded bitstream generating separate data “represents two original data which would be at the same time frame” and teaches decoding “from a bitstream, first audio data for a time frame and second audio data for the time frame.” Final Act. 10 (citing Mundt ¶¶ 34, 62, Fig. 7). The Examiner finds that the claim does not preclude that “separate data which represents two original data signals are processed at that same time frame,” which is taught by Mundt. Ans. 34 (citing Mundt ¶¶ 34, 62, Fig. 7). The Examiner also finds that Mundt’s decoding the data “includes the spatial characteristics and virtual sound source to be processed at different directions to be generated at headphone speakers” and teaches the claimed rendering of the audio data into spatial domain audio data. Final Act. 10 (citing Mundt ¶¶ 38, 46, 62, 71-74, Figs. 7, 10, 11). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Mundt’s decoded data being processed “includes the spatial data and virtual sound sources that are mixed for speaker output,” and that the spatial data “includes the HRTF for location and orientation in which the mixing of the audio signals are determined” teaches the claimed mixing the audio data. Final Act. 10-11 (citing Mundt ¶¶ 38, 46, 62, 71-74, Figs. 7, 10, 11). According to the Examiner, Mundt’s “mixing the decoded multichannel input signal by a mixer” teaches “decoding the multi-channel signal using spatial audio data” and that this spatial data is “downmixed into channels as well as the parameters for the plurality of channels,” which Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 8 teaches “changing the multichannel to a left and right channels with spatial audio data for output to the speakers.” Ans. 35. Appellant argues that Mundt does not teach the claimed “time frame.” Appeal Br. 10-11. According to Appellant, claim 1 requires that “each channel may represent audio data for the same time frame,” but also that the claim further recites that the first audio data from the time frame is rendered into first spatial domain data and that the second audio data from the time frame is rendered into second spatial domain audio data. Id. at 10. Appellant also argues that Mundt’s “channel count is reduced via downmixing while retaining the reduced channels in the form of ‘spatial parameters’” does not teach that audio data is “mixed” in the claimed manner. Appeal Br. 13; see Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Mundt is generally directed to “generating a binaural signal based on a multi-channel signal representing a plurality of channels and intended for reproduction by a speaker configuration having a virtual sound source position associated to each channel.” Mundt, code (57). As cited by the Examiner, Mundt discloses “turn[ing] the multi-channel signal 18 representing the plurality of channels 18a-18d, into an inter-similarity reduced set 20 of channels 20a-20d.” Mundt ¶ 34. The channels “may, for example, comprise a center channel, a front left channel, a front right channel, a rear left channel, and a rear right channel” and “have, for example, been mixed up by a sound designer from a plurality of individual audio signals.” Id. These signals are mixed “assuming that or with the intention that the channels 18a-18d are reproduced by a speaker setup . . . having the speakers positioned at predefined virtual sound source positions Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 9 associated to each channel.” Id. Mundt also recites that “the multi-channel signal 18 could represent the plurality of channels 18a-18d in a compressed manner, using spatial audio coding,” such that “the plurality of channels 18a-18d could be represented by means of a downmix signal down to which the channels are downmixed, accompanied by downmix information . . . and spatial parameters describing the spatial image of the multi-channel signal.” Id. ¶ 38. Mundt also recites that a “decoded multi-channel 124 is derived by the multi-channel decoder 102 from a bitstream input at a bitstream input 126, such as, for example, by spatial audio decoding.” Id. ¶ 62. In other words, Mundt teaches a multi-channel signal of a bitstream for reproducing audio, using spatial audio decoding to derive the multi-channel signal with spatial parameters, and downmixing the channels using spatial parameters. Appellant does not explain why Mundt’s multi-channel signal of a bitstream for reproducing audio does not teach “decod[ing], from a bitstream, first audio data for a time frame and second audio data for the time frame” as claimed. Appellant also does not explain why Mundt’s using spatial audio decoding to derive the multi-channel signal (for reproducing audio) with spatial parameters does not teach “render[ing] the first audio data into first spatial domain audio data for playback” and “render[ing] the second audio data into second spatial domain audio data for playback” as claimed. Appellant also does not explain why Mundt’s downmixing the channels using spatial parameters does not teach “mix[ing] the first spatial domain audio data and the second spatial domain audio data to obtain mixed spatial domain audio data” as claimed. Appellant also argues that Mundt’s “rendering binaural speaker feeds from channels for the express purpose of playback” does not teach the Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 10 claimed mixing of spatial audio domain data and converting the mixed data. Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellant argues that the claimed mixed and converted data “is not capable of being used for playback” like in Mundt, and instead “is a three-dimensional representation of the soundfield from which [the] speaker feeds may be rendered.” Appeal Br. 11. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner does not rely on Mundt to teach the claimed “convert[ing] the mixed spatial domain audio data to scene- based audio data.” Rather, the Examiner relies on Najaf-Zadeh’s “processing the audio data in time domain to be mapped to virtual speakers for playback to the system speakers” teaches the claimed converting the mixed spatial domain audio data to scene-based audio data. Final Act. 11 (citing Najaf-Zadeh ¶¶ 67, 69, 77, 79. 80). As cited by the Examiner, Najaf- Zadeh discloses “perform[ing] ambisonic conversion” by mapping multichannel audio “to spherical harmonics to generate an ambisonic representation of the sound field.” Najaf-Zadeh ¶ 77. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, along with the rejections of independent claims 12, 23, and 24, and dependent claims 3-11 and 14-22, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 14-15, 17-22. Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 11 Claims 2 and 13 Claim 2 recites (emphasis added) “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine, based on headset capability data representative of one or more capabilities of a headset and prior to rendering the first audio data and the second audio data, the set of virtual speaker locations at which the virtual speakers are located.” The Examiner finds that Peterson’s “system determin[ing] the capabilities of the headset prior to rending the audio data” teaches making determinations based on the headset capability and prior to rendering. Final Act. 18 (citing Peterson ¶¶ 50-51); see also Ans. 36. The Examiner relies on Mundt’s decoding data including “the spatial characteristics and virtual sound source to be processed at different directions to be generated at headphone speakers” to teach the claimed “set of virtual speaker locations at which the virtual speakers are located.” Id. (citing Mundt ¶¶ 38, 46, 62, 71- 74); see Ans. 36. Appellant argues that Peterson does not “indicate that such headset type may influence anything related to where ‘the virtual speakers are located’ per claim 2.” Appeal Br. 17. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument as the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how the combination of Mundt and Peterson teaches determining the set of virtual speaker locations based on headset capability prior to rendering the audio data. As discussed above, Mundt discloses that the signals are mixed “assuming that or with the intention that the channels 18a-18d are reproduced by a speaker setup . . . having the speakers positioned at Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 12 predefined virtual sound source positions associated to each channel.” Mundt ¶ 34. As cited by the Examiner, Peterson discloses that “the logic may determine whether the type of headset being used is an AR headset or a VR headset . . . based on data transmitted from the headset indicating headset type.” Peterson ¶ 50. In other words, the sections of Mundt cited by the Examiner teach audio data for playback by virtual speakers at virtual speaker locations; and Peterson teaches using headset capability information to determine whether a headset is used as an AR headset or a VR headset. However, the Examiner does not explain how combining Peterson’s use of headset capability information to determine how the headset is used with Mundt’s audio data for playback by virtual speakers at virtual speaker locations would result in the claimed “determin[ing], based on headset capability data . . . and prior to rendering the first audio data and the second audio data, the set of virtual speaker locations at which the virtual speakers are located.” Specifically, the Examiner does not explain how Peterson’s headset capability information used to determine how the headset is used would be applied to determine the set of virtual speaker locations. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding that Peterson as combined with Mundt teaches the disputed limitations is in error because it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (The Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence.); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 13 unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”). Accordingly, we are constrained on the record before us to reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claim 2, and dependent claim 13 with commensurate limitations and argued for the same reasons as claim 2. Appeal Br. 20. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s § 112 rejection of claim 23. We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1, 2-12, and 14- 24. We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 2 and 13. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 23 112 Indefiniteness 23 1, 3, 4, 7, 11 103 Mundt, McCary, Najaf-Zadeh 1, 3, 4, 7, 11 2 103 Mundt, McCary, Najaf-Zadeh, Peterson 2 5 103 Mundt, McCary, Najaf-Zadeh, Allen 5 6 103 Mundt, McCary, Najaf-Zadeh, Gerald Enzner 6 8-10 103 Mundt, McCary, Najaf-Zadeh, Vicinus 8-10 12, 14, 15, 18, 22-24 103 Mundt, Najaf-Zadeh 12, 14, 15, 18, 22-24 13 103 Mundt, Najaf-Zadeh, Peterson 13 16 103 Mundt, Najaf-Zadeh, Allen 16 17 103 Mundt, Najaf-Zadeh, Gerald Enzner 17 Appeal 2021-001310 Application 16/264,115 14 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 19-21 103 Mundt, Najaf-Zadeh, Vicinus 19-21 Overall Outcome 1, 3-12, 14- 24 2, 13 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-IN-PART