Ex Parte Alderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2018

13962515 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/962,515 08/08/2013
115799 7590 07/26/2018
Cirrus Logic c/o Jackson Walker LLP
c/o Jackson Walker, L.L.P.
100 Congress A venue
Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey D. Alderson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
141841.00023 6659
EXAMINER
PATEL, YOGESHKUMAR G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY D. ALDERSON, JON D. HENDRIX,
ANTONIO J. MILLER, ROBERT G. KRATSAS,
JENS-PETER B. AXELSSON, DA YONG ZHOU, YANG LU and
CHIN HUANG YONG
Appeal2018-001422
Application 13/962,515
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 3-23, 25--45 and
47---66 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5-10. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm and designate our affirmance as new grounds of rejection
under 37 C.F.R § 41.50(b).
Appeal2018-001422
Application 13/962,515
Introduction
"Because the acoustic environment around personal audio devices,
such as wireless telephones, can change dramatically, depending on the
sources of noise that are present, the position of the device itself, and a mode
of operation of the audio device ( e.g., phone call, listening to music, in a
noisy environment with no source audio content, as an earplug, as a hearing
aid, etc.), it is desirable to adapt the noise canceling to take into account such
environmental changes." Specification 2.
Illustrative Claim
1. An integrated circuit for implementing at least a portion of a
personal audio device, comprising:
an output for providing an output signal to a transducer including both
a source audio signal for playback to a listener and an anti-noise signal for
countering the effect of ambient audio sounds in an acoustic output of the
transducer; and
a processing circuit that implements an adaptive noise cancellation
system that generates the anti-noise signal to reduce the presence of the
ambient audio sounds heard by the listener by adapting, based on a presence
of the source audio signal, a response of the adaptive noise cancellation
system to minimize the ambient audio sounds at the acoustic output of the
transducer, wherein:
the adaptive noise cancellation system is configured to adapt
both in the presence and the absence of the source audio signal; and
the processing circuit adapts the response of the adaptive noise
cancellation system in the presence of the source audio signal based
on at least one of a persistence of the source audio signal and a
spectral density of the source audio signal, wherein a persistence of
the source audio signal is a measure of a portion of a time interval in
which the source audio signal is substantially non-zero.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-14, 23-30, 34--36, 45-52 and 56-58 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kwatra (US Patent
2
Appeal2018-001422
Application 13/962,515
Application Publication 2012/0308027 Al; published December 6, 2012)
and He (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0001450 Al; published
January 1, 2004). Answer 3-10.
Claims 9-11, 21-22, 31-33, 43, 44, 53-55, 65 and 66 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kwatra, He and
Watkins (US Patent 6,940,982 Bl; issued September 6, 2005). Answer 10-
13.
Claims 15, 37 and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kwatra, He and Ray (Laura R. Ray et al., Hybrid
feedforward-feedback active noise reduction for hearing protection and
communication, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, (2006)). Answer 13-14.
Claims 16-18, 38--40 and 60-62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kwatra, He and Christoph (European
Patent Application 1 947 642 Al; published July 23, 2008). Answer 15-17.
Claims 19, 20, 41, 42, 63 and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kwatra, He and Isberg (US
2010/0322430 Al; published December 23, 2010). Answer 17-18.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 23, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
November 27, 2017), the Answer (mailed September 29, 2017) and the Final
Action (mailed December 28, 2016) for the respective details.
We have considered Appellants' arguments and contentions (Appeal
Brief 5-10; Reply Brief 2--4) in light of the Examiner's findings (Ans. 2-17)
and explanations (Answer 19-24). For the reasons set forth below, we
affirm. However, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b), we designate our
3
Appeal2018-001422
Application 13/962,515
affirmance of the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-23, 25--45 and 47---66
as new grounds of rejection because our reasons for affirming such
rejections materially differ from those expressed by the Examiner. See In re
Leithem, 661 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Mere reliance on the same
statutory basis and the same prior art references, alone, is insufficient to
avoid making a new ground of rejection when the Board relies on new facts
and rationales not previously raised to the applicant by the examiner.").
Appellants contend:
[T]he Examiner states "K watra teaches the persistent detection
[ checking] of the source audio if it is low in amplitude (non-
zero), the adaptation of the secondary path estimating adaptive
filter can be maintained." (Office Action, Page 18) (emphasis in
original). This response is insufficient for at least two reasons.
First, it fails to address a very important crux in the Appellant's
argument: that there is no basis upon which to equate persistent
detection or checking to detecting or checking whether
something is persistent. Second, the Examiner equates "low in
amplitude" as allegedly taught by Kwatra to "non-zero."
However, the phrases "low in amplitude" and "non-zero" are not
equivalent, as "low in amplitude" can include zero.
Appeal Brief 7-8.
As to the K watra reference, the Examiner finds "K watra does not
explicitly disclose wherein a persistence of the source audio signal is a
measure of a portion of a time interval in which the source audio signal is
substantially non-zero." Answer 5. As to the He reference, the Examiner
finds, "[H]e teaches wherein a persistence of the source audio signal is a
measure of a portion of a time interval in which the source audio signal is
substantially non-zero. Answer 5 (citing He, paragraphs 65, 84 and 91).
4
Appeal2018-001422
Application 13/962,515
K watra discloses "A personal audio device, such as a wireless
telephone, includes an adaptive noise canceling (ANC) circuit that
adaptively generates an anti-noise signal from a reference microphone
signal and injects the anti-noise signal into the speaker or other transducer
output to cause cancellation of ambient audio sounds" wherein "[ n ]oise is
injected either continuously and inaudibly below the source audio, or in
response to detection that the source audio is low in amplitude, so that the
adaptation of the secondary path estimating adaptive filter can be
maintained, irrespective of the presence and amplitude of the source
audio." Kwatra, Abstract; Final Action 3.
Appellants disclose on page 16 of the Specification ( emphasis added):
At step 404 [of Figure 4], CODEC IC 20, ANC circuit 30, and/or
any component thereof may determine whether the source audio
signal is persistent. In this context, "persistent" or "persistence"
means that during a particular time interval ( e.g., two seconds,
ten seconds, etc.), the source audio signal is substantially non-
zero for at least a minimum portion of such time interval. For
example, downlink speech which comprises a telephone
conversation is typically "bursty" in nature, and thus
impersistent. As another example, internal audio comprising
playback of music is typically persistent, while internal audio
comprising playback of conversation ( as would be the case in
playback of dialogue in a film soundtrack) would typically be
impersistent. If the source audio signal is persistent, method 400
may proceed to step 406. Otherwise, method 400 may proceed to
step 410.
Kwatra further discloses:
[D]epending on the presence (and level) of the audio signal
reproduced by the personal audio device, e.g., downlink audio
during a telephone conversation or playback audio from a media
file/connection, the secondary path adaptive filter may not be
able to continue to adapt to estimate the secondary path.
5
Appeal2018-001422
Application 13/962,515
Therefore, the present invention uses injected noise to provide
enough energy for the secondary path estimating adaptive filter
to continue to adapt, while remaining at a level that is
unnoticeable to the listener.
Kwatra, paragraph 15 (emphasis added).
We do not agree with the Examiner's findings because the Examiner
misinterprets the claimed "persistence of the source audio signal." See
Answer 5. However, we do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive
because according to Appellants' non-limiting example from the
Specification, persistence source audio (substantially non-zero audio signal)
is the playback of music and K watra discloses that noise cancelling is
employed in personal audio devices such as telephones and media players
both which are well known in the technology to play music. (See
Specification, page 16; Kwatra, paragraph 15). Further, Appellants
argument that low in amplitude can include zero (Appeal Brief 7-8) is not
persuasive of error because the nonexistence of amplitude is not considered
to be low, it is considered to be zero. The term low indicates that there is
some measurable amount of amplitude present not the total absence of
amplitude.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 23 and 45, not argued separately, as well as the
Examiner obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3-22, 25--44 and 47-
66 not argued separately. Appeal Brief 7, 9 and 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 3-23, 25--45 and
4 7----66 are affirmed.
6
Appeal2018-001422
Application 13/962,515
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of
rejection ... , shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an
appropriate amendment of the claims
so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and
have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the
exammer ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that
the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board
upon the same
record ....
AFFIRMED
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
7