Ex Parte Ali

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2013

10568173 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte WALID ALI1
__________

Appeal 2011-005450
Application 10/568,173
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, LORA M. GREEN, and
SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims related to
detecting artifacts in a signal, which have been rejected for anticipation and
obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Koninklijke Philips
Electronics, N.V. (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-005450
Application 10/568,173

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification states that “[i]n conventional patient monitoring
systems, alarms are typically generated on crossing a limit or threshold in a
signal being monitored, e.g., heart rate” (Spec. 1). However, “wide
variations in a given parameter can be observed without any major alteration
of the physiological function of a patient. Many of these fluctuations cause
a false alarm in conventional patient monitoring systems.” (Id. at 1-2.)
The Specification discloses a method of identifying an artifact in an
event signal (e.g., ECG, EEG, pulse, or temperature) (id. at 4), by
determining global and local correlations between at least two event signals,
and, based on the deviation between the local and global correlations,
determining whether an artifact is present in the event signal (see id. at 2-3).
Claims 1-16 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as
follows:
1. A device comprising:
a controller;
a memory coupled to the controller; and
an input interface which receives at least two event signals,
wherein the controller determines:
a global correlation matrix for the at least two event signals over a
first period of time,
a local correlation matrix tor the at least two event signals over a
second period of time which is shorter than the first period of time,
a correlation vector indicative of a deviation between the local
correlation matrix and the global correlation matrix,
an average of the correlation vector, and
whether an artifact was detected in one of the at least two event
signals from the correlation vector and the average of the correlation vector.

Appeal 2011-005450
Application 10/568,173

3
The claims stand rejected as follows:
• Claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Shimauchi2 (Answer 7);
• Claims 2-6 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on
Shimauchi and Snyder3 (Answer 8); and
• Claims 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Snyder and
Shimauchi (Answer 9).
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 13 as anticipated by
Shimauchi. The Examiner finds that Shimauchi discloses all of the
limitations of claim 1, including “an input interface arranged to receive at
least two event signals, 111, 112, 11n, wherein the controller determines . . .
whether an artifact, echo, was detected in one of the at least two event
signals . . . (Abstract, Fig. 6, Col. 2, ll. 9 - 37)” (Answer 7-8).
Appellant argues that “Shimauchi is directed to a multi-channel
acoustic echo cancellation . . . apparatus” (Appeal Br. 10) that lacks several
elements of claim 1 (id. at 10-12). Among other things, Appellant argues
that Shimauchi does not anticipate claim 1 because “the ‘artifact’ in
Shimauchi is not detected in one of the received signals x1(k) and x2(k)
which the Examiner has defined as the event signals. Rather, the echo signal
y(k), which the Examiner asserts is an artifact, is the signal as actually
picked-up by the microphone.” (Id. at 12.)
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that
Shimauchi discloses a device that includes all of the limitations of claim 1.

2 Shimauchi et al., US 5,661,813, Aug. 26, 1997.
3 Snyder et al., US 6,287,328 B1, Sept. 11, 2001.
Appeal 2011-005450
Application 10/568,173

4
Shimauchi describes “a method and apparatus for multi-channel acoustic
echo cancellation which cancel a room echo that causes howling . . . in a
teleconference system” (Shimauchi, col. 1, ll. 6-9). Shimauchi shows a prior
art echo canceller in its Figure 1, reproduced below:

Figure 1 shows a one-channel echo canceller (id. at col. 1, ll. 39-40).
In the system pictured, “speech uttered by a person at a remote place is
provided as a received signal to a received signal terminal 11 and is radiated
from a loudspeaker 12” (id. at col. 1, ll. 41-43). Shimauchi refers to the
received signal as “x(k)” (id. at col. 1, ll. 45-46). “[A]n echo y(k) . . . is
produced when the received signal x(k) radiated from the loudspeaker 12 is
picked up by a microphone 16 after propagating over an echo path 15” (id. at
col. 1, ll. 46-49). Echo canceller 14 iteratively generates an estimated echo
or echo replica ŷ(k) to correct for echo y(k) and reduce the residual echo
signal e(k) (id. at col. 1, l. 46; col. 2, ll. 8-42).
Appeal 2011-005450
Application 10/568,173

5
Shimauchi’s Figure 6 shows a multi-channel echo canceller that
similarly receives signals x1(k) to xN(k) (id. at col. 2, l. 51) and generates an
estimated echo ŷm(k) (id. at col. 3, ll. 38-39) to correct for echo ym(k) (id. at
col. 2, ll. 65-66) and reduce residual echo signal em(k) (id. at col. 3, l. 4)
The Examiner identifies the event signals of claim 1 as elements 111,
112, 11n shown in Shimauchi’s Figure 6 (Answer 6-7). Shimauchi identifies
the elements, however, as “input terminals 111 to 11N,” which receive
signals x1(k) to xN(k) (Shimauchi, col. 2, ll. 51-52). Thus, as Appellant
points out, the signals received in Shimauchi’s device are x1(k) to xN(k).
The Examiner finds that Shimauchi’s device determines “whether an
artifact, echo, was detected in one of the at least two event signals” (Answer
7-8). Again, however, Appellant correctly points out that the echo that
Shimauchi’s system corrects for is not found (or detected) in the event
signals x1(k) to xN(k); it results from output of those signals by a
loudspeaker, the propagation of the sound over an echo path, and the
reception of the resulting sound by a microphone. Thus, the echo is not
“detected” in the received signals x1(k) to xN(k) but in the signal provided to
the microphone.
Thus, the Examiner’s finding that Shimauchi discloses a device that
“determines . . . whether an artifact was detected in one of the at least two
event signals” received by the device, as required by claim 1, is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. “Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art
reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 1
Appeal 2011-005450
Application 10/568,173

6
and 13 as anticipated by Shimauchi, as well as the rejection of claim 13,
which requires “means for receiving at least two event signals” and “means
for determining whether an artifact was detected in one of the at least two
event signals.”
The Examiner has also rejected claims 2-12 and 14-16 as obvious
based on the combined teachings of Shimauchi and Snyder (Answer 8-10).
Claims 4 and 7 are independent. Claim 4 is directed to a system that
includes the same relevant limitations discussed above with respect to claim
1. Claim 7 is directed to a method that includes “receiving at least two event
signals” and “comparing the current deviation and the average deviation to
determine whether an artifact was detected in one of the at least two event
signals.”
The § 103 rejections rely on the Examiner’s findings that Shimauchi’s
device meets all of the limitations of claim 1. That finding is not supported
by the evidence, as discussed above, and the Examiner has not provided a
basis for concluding that the elements missing from Shimauchi would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of
Snyder. Therefore, we also reverse the rejections based on 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
SUMMARY
We reverse all of the rejections on appeal.

REVERSED

lp