Ex Parte Buck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2017

11832445 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2017)

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.
11/832,445 08/01/2007 Markus Buck NUANCE-011PUS/061576USORG 6098
115788 7590 10/18/2017
Nuance
c/o Daly, Crowley, Mofford and Durkee, LLP
354A Turnpike Street
Suite 301A
Canton, MA 02021-2714
EXAMINER
GANMAVO, KUASSI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2655
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2017 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):
ip.inbox@nuance.com
docketing@dc-m.com
amk@dc-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKUS BUCK, TIM HAULICK, and
GERHARD UWE SCHMIDT
Appeal 2017-002676
Application 11/832,4451
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1—11, 15—25, 29-37, 41—45, and 48—50.
The Examiner objects to claims 12—14, 26—28, 38-40, 46, and 47, but
states the claims would otherwise be allowable if rewritten in independent
form. Non-Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nuance
Communications, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-002676
Application 11/832,445
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention "relate to a
dereverberation system for use in a signal processing apparatus and, more
particularly, to a dereverberation system that may be used in a loudspeaker-
room-microphone environment." Spec. 12.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases and labeling added to contested limitations):
1. A system for use in a loudspeaker-room-
microphone environment, the system comprising:
a microphone signal partitioner adapted to divide a
microphone signal into one or more divided portions;
[LI] an echo cancellation filter adapted to filter an echo
component of one or more divided portions of the microphone
signal on the basis of at least one loudspeaker signal;
[L2] a reverberation energy estimator adapted to
estimate reverberation energy in at least some of the one or
more divided portions of the microphone signal on the basis of
the at least one loudspeaker signal; and
[L3] a microphone signal filter adapted to filter one or
more divided portions of the microphone signal on the basis of
the estimated reverberation energy as determined by the
reverberation energy estimator,
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Feb. 16, 2016); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 6, 2016); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 6, 2016); Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final
Act.," mailed July 16, 2015); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Aug. 1,2007).
2
Appeal 2017-002676
Application 11/832,445
[L4] wherein the reverberation energy estimator
estimates the reverberation energy of speech signals in the
loudspeaker-room-microphone environment and the echo
cancellation fdter removes echo components of a loudspeaker
that receives the at least one loudspeaker signal in the
loudspeaker-room-microphone environment.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Walker US 2004/0204933 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Chhetri et al. ("Chhetri") US 2006/0222172 A1 Oct. 5, 2006
Roovers et al. ("Roovers") US 2007/0165871 Al July 19, 2007
Kuster US 2008/0002833 Al Jan. 3, 2008
Rejections on Appeal
Rl. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 15, 17, 19, 20, 30, 32, 34, 35, 41, 48, and 50
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chhetri.
Non-Final Act. 4.3
R2. Claims 2, 4, 7—9, 16, 18, 21—23, 31, 33, 42, 43, and 49 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Chhetri and Kuster. Non-Final Act. 8.
R3. Claims 10, 11, 24, 36, 44, 25, 37, and 45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chhetri
and Walker. Non-Final Act. 13.
3 We note claims 6, 20, and 35 were omitted from the Examiner's explicit
statement of Rejection Rl, but were addressed in the detailed rejection. See
Non-Final Act. 4 et seq.
3
Appeal 2017-002676
Application 11/832,445
R4. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chhetri and Roovers. Non-Final
Act. 16.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We agree with particular arguments advanced by Appellants with
respect to claims 1—11, 15—25, 29-37, 41—45, and 48—50 for the specific
reasons discussed below. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
1. $ 102(b) Rejection Rl-Claims 1. 3. 5. 6. 15. 17. 19. 20. 30. 32. 34. 35.
41, 48, and 50
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br.5—10; Reply Br. —) the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chhetri is in
error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses "[a]
system for use in a loudspeaker-room-microphone environment" that
includes, inter alia, the following limitations, as emphasized by Appellants
(App. Br., 8):
[LI] an echo cancellation filter adapted to filter an echo
component of one or more divided portions of the microphone
signal on the basis of at least one loudspeaker signal:
4
Appeal 2017-002676
Application 11/832,445
[L2] a reverberation energy estimator adapted to estimate
reverberation energy in at least some of the one or more divided
portions of the microphone signal on the basis of the at least
one loudspeaker signal; and
[L3] a microphone signal filter adapted to filter one or
more divided portions of the microphone signal on the basis of
the estimated reverberation energy as determined by the
reverberation energy estimator,
[L4] wherein the reverberation energy estimator
estimates the reverberation energy of speech signals in the
loudspeaker-room-microphone environment and the echo
cancellation filter removes echo components of a loudspeaker
that receives the at least one loudspeaker signal in the
loudspeaker-room-microphone environment.
as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellants contend the Examiner confuses reverberation of a desired
speech signal with loudspeaker feedback that couples back as an echo. App.
Br. 6. Further, Appellants argue the claimed invention is directed to
suppressing reverberation of a desired speech signal, while Chhetri merely
teaches suppressing loudspeaker feedback. App. Br. 7. Instead of
performing "dereverberation of the desired speech signal, as claimed,"
Chhetri "removes residual echoes after [acoustic echo cancellation] AEC
processing, which is an entirely different application .... Claim 1 clearly
distinguishes between the 'reverberation energy of speech'. . . and the 'echo
components of a loudspeaker.'" Id.
Moreover, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding "Chhetri
teaches 'a reverberation energy estimator'.... [because] Chhetri discloses
5
Appeal 2017-002676
Application 11/832,445
reverberation [estimation] only for loudspeaker echoes," and not for speech
signals. App. Br. 8.4
Anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 occurs when each
claimed element and the claimed arrangement or combination of those
elements is disclosed, inherently or expressly, by a single prior art reference.
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2010). A reference inherently discloses an element of a claim "if that
missing characteristic is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single
anticipating reference." Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). It is not enough
[in an anticipation rejection] that the prior art reference discloses part of the
claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the
whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might
somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention. Net Moneyln, Inc. v.
Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The Examiner cites to Chhetri paragraphs 40, 43, 46, and 47, along
with Figure 2, filters 216 and 220, as disclosing limitations LI through L4.
Non-Final Act. 4—5. We disagree with the Examiner's findings because we
have reviewed the portions of Chhetri cited by the Examiner and, given the
high burden that must be met in an anticipation rejection under § 102, we do
not find a clear mapping of where the reference discloses limitation L4, i.e.,
4 Appellants also argue, "Chhetri explicitly teaches against using 'late
reverberation' for a room impulse response and 'instead' teaches use of the
'short-term spectrum of the echo residual,' which is the AEC output, and
employing an 'appropriate regression model.'" App. Br. 9. Notwithstanding
other points set forth by Appellants, we note "[Reaching away is irrelevant
to anticipation." Seachange International, Inc., v. C-Cor, Inc., 413 F.3d
1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
6
Appeal 2017-002676
Application 11/832,445
a disclosure that "the reverberation energy estimator estimates the
reverberation energy of speech signals in the loudspeaker-room-microphone
environment," as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior
art to disclose the disputed limitation L4 of claim 1. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, and the
rejection of independent claims 15, 30, 41, and 50, which are rejected on the
same basis and which recite the disputed limitation in commensurate form.
For the same reasons, we also reverse the rejections of all claims 3, 5, 6, 17,
19, 20, 32, 34, 35, and 48 that variously depend from claims 1,15, 30,
and 41.
2. $ 103 Rejection R2-R4 of Claims 2. 4. 7-11. 16. 18. 21-25. 29. 31.
33.36. 37. 42-45. and 49
In light of our reversal of the rejections of independent claims 1,15,
30, and 41, supra, we also reverse obviousness Rejections R2 through R4
under § 103 of claims 2, 4, 7—11, 16, 18, 21—25, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 42, 43,
44, 45, and 49, which variously and ultimately depend from claims 1,15, 30,
and 41. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally
cited secondary Kuster, Walker, and Roovers references overcome the
aforementioned deficiencies with Chhetri, as discussed above regarding
claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner erred with respect to anticipation Rejection R1 of
claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 15, 17, 19, 20, 30, 32, 34, 35, 41, 48, and 50 under 35
7
Appeal 2017-002676
Application 11/832,445
U.S.C. § 102(b) over the cited prior art of record, and we do not sustain the
rejection.
(2) The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections R2
through R4 of claims 2, 4, 7—11, 16, 18, 21—25, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 42-45
and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of
record, and we do not sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—11, 15—25, 29—
37, 41—45, and 48—50.
REVERSED
8