Ex Parte Buck et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 10, 2019

13990176 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/990,176 08/01/2013
115788 7590 04/12/2019
Nuance
c/o Daly, Crowley, Mofford and Durkee, LLP
One University A venue
Suite 201B
Westwood, MA 02090
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Markus Buck
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.
NUANCE-002PUS 3311
EXAMINER
OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/12/2019 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):
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, TIMO MATHEJA, and
ACHIM EICHENTOPF
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990,176 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, IRVINE. BRANCH, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41--43, 48, and 50, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to "a dynamic microphone signal mixer that
includes spectral preprocessing to compensate for different speech levels
and/or for different background noise." Spec. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nuance
Communications, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
Illustrative Claim
Claim 30 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
30. A method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of signals containing sound
information from respective speaker-dedicated microphones
located proximate a speaker position in a vehicle;
determining a dominant speaker signal from a plurality of
speakers in the plurality of signals at a given time;
determining target values for automatic gain control for
the plurality of signals using a target peak signal level based upon
weighting of the dominant speaker signal and the plurality of
signals;
performing noise reduction on the plurality of signals
including determining a maximum attenuation for each of the
plurality of signals using the dominant speaker signal to equalize
power and spectral shape of background noise for each of the
signals in the plurality of signals;
combining the noise reduced signals in a mixer to provide
an output signal; and
configuring the output signal for output of sound by at
least one loudspeaker.
References and Rejections2
Claims 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41--43, 48, and 50 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief filed Apr. 14,
2017 ("App. Br."), as well as the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Rejection mailed November 17, 2016 ("Final Act."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed November 9, 2017 ("Ans."), and Appellants'
Reply Brief filed January 8, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Ans.
2--4.
Claims 30, 36, 39, 41, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over McArthur et al. (US 2003/0028372 Al; published Feb.
6, 2003) ("McArthur"), Nongpiur et al. (US 2008/0285773 Al; published
Nov. 20, 2008) ("Nongpiur"), and Buck et al. (US 2006/0222184 Al; Oct. 5,
2006) ("Buck"). Ans. 5-9.
Claims 33, 42, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over McArthur, Nongpiur, Buck, and Morin et al.
(US 6,411,927 Bl; June 25, 2002) ("Morin"). Ans. 9-11.
Claims 34 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over McArthur, Nongpiur, Buck, and Graumann
(US 5,598,466; Jan 28, 2007). Ans. 11-13.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as unpatentable over
McArthur, Nongpiur, Buck, and Goto et al. (US 2009/0055169 Al;
published Feb. 26, 2009) ("Goto"). Ans. 13-15.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent with our analysis herein.
3
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
A. 35 U.S.C. § 101
Standard for Patent Eligibility
In issues involving subject matter eligibility, our inquiry focuses on
whether the claims satisfy the two-step test set forth by the Supreme Court in
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). The Supreme Court
instructs us to "first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a
patent-ineligible concept" (id. at 216-18), and, in this case, the inquiry
centers on whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. If the initial
threshold is met, we then move to the second step, in which we "consider the
elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to
determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the
claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. at 217 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 78 (2012)).
The Supreme Court describes the second step as a search for "an 'inventive
concept' -i.e., an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-
73).
After the docketing of this Appeal, the US PTO published revised
guidance on the application of§ 101 ("Guidance"). See US PTO' s 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) ("Memorandum"). Under the Guidance, the office first looks to
whether the claim recites:
( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
4
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to whether
the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
Examiner's Determinations
The Examiner determines the claims are patent ineligible under 35
U.S.C. § 101, because "the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
without significantly more." Ans. 2. Specifically, the Examiner determines
that the claims
are directed to the abstract idea of performing gain control, noise
reduction, and mixing on input signals, which is a fundamental
idea in audio signal processing, as well as nothing more than
mathematical calculations. The "determining a dominant
speaker", "determining target values for automatic gain control",
"performing noise reduction", and "combining the noise reduced
signals" steps in the claims that describe this abstract idea
amount to no more than mathematical calculations. This abstract
idea corresponds to concepts previously identified as abstract
ideas by the courts, such as: an algorithm for converting binary
coded decimal to pure binary (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63,
175 U.S.P.Q. 673 (1972)); a formula for computing an alarm
limit (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978));
5
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
the Arrhenius equation (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209
U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981)).
Id. at 2-3.
The Examiner further determines that
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the "receiving a plurality of signals" and
"configuring the output signal" steps amount to no more than
mere gathering/movement of data, and require no more than
generic computer functions that are well-understood; note that
configuring output signal for output of sound by at least one loud
speaker is a statement of intended use, and does not positively
require that the sound be output by the loudspeaker. Generically
recited computer elements (i.e. "processor", "computer",
"memory") do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract
idea because they would be routine in any computer
implementation. Further, requiring that the microphones be
located in a vehicle amounts to generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or
field of use, which is not enough to qualify as "significantly
more" than the abstract idea itself.
Id. at 3.
Our Review
Prong 1
Pursuant to the Guidance, we are persuaded the rejection is in error.
The Memorandum instructs us first to determine whether any judicial
exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The guidance identifies
three judicially-excepted groupings: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain
methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic
practices, and (3) mental processes. We focus here on the first grouping-
mathematical concepts.
6
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
Claim 30 recites the following limitations: (1) "receiving a plurality of
signals containing sound information," (2) "determining a dominant speaker
signal from a plurality of speakers in the plurality of signals at a given time,"
(3) "determining target values for automatic gain control for the plurality of
signals using a target peak signal level based upon weighting of the
dominant speaker signal and the plurality of signals," ( 4) "performing noise
reduction on the plurality of signals including determining a maximum
attenuation for each of the plurality of signals using the dominant speaker
signal to equalize power and spectral shape of background noise for each of
the signals in the plurality of signals," (5) "combining the noise reduced
signals in a mixer to provide an output signal" and ( 6) "configuring the
output signal for output of sound by at least one loudspeaker." These
limitations, under their broadest reasonable limitation, recite mathematical
concepts.
For example, "determining target values for automatic gain control for
the plurality of signals using a target peak signal level based on weighting of
the dominant speaker signal and the plurality of signals," as recited in
limitation (3), is a mathematical formula which determines values based on
weighting of signals. Similarly, "performing noise reduction ... including
determining a maximum attenuation for each of the plurality of signals using
the dominant speaker signal to equalize power and spectral shape of
background noise for each of the signals in the plurality of signals, as recited
in limitation ( 4), broadly recites a determination based on a mathematical
concept. Also, "combining the noise reduced signals ... to provide an
output signal," as recited in limitation (5) is a mathematical calculation.
7
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
The claims here are similar to those found patent ineligible in
Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266
(Fed. Cir. 2012). The patentee in Bancorp claimed methods and systems for
managing a life insurance policy on behalf of a policy holder, which
comprised steps including generating a life insurance policy including a
stable value protected investment with an initial value based on a value of
underlying securities, calculating surrender value protected investment
credits for the life insurance policy; determining an investment value and a
value of the underlying securities for the current day; and calculating a
policy value and a policy unit value for the current day. Bancorp, 687 F.3d
at 1270-71. The court looked to the specification to understand the claims,
and noted that "[a]s the formulae in the specification indicate, the
determination of [the claimed] values, and their subsequent manipulation, is
a matter of mere mathematical computation." Accordingly, the court
determined that the claim was directed to "the abstract idea of managing a
stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and
manipulating the results." Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280.
Similar to the situation in Bancorp, Appellants' Specification details
the mathematical equations used to implement "the abstract idea of
performing gain control, noise reduction, and mixing on input signals, which
is a fundamental idea in audio signal processing, as well as nothing more
than mathematical calculations." Ans. 2; see Spec. ,r,r 29-51. Accordingly,
we conclude the claims recite mathematical concepts, which is one of the
judicial exceptions recognized in the Revised Guidance, and thus an abstract
idea.
8
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
Prong 2
Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, our
analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are
"additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application." See MPEP § 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h). One such integration
into a practical application may be found by applying or using the judicial
exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception. See MPEP § 2106.0S(e), (h).
We determine the claims include "additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application." Specifically, the
limitations regarding receiving a plurality of signals from speaker-dedicated
microphones, determining a dominant speaker signal from a plurality of
speakers, and configuring the output signal for output of sound are
additional elements that use the judicial exception beyond generally linking
the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Thus, we determine that the claims recite more than mere
mathematical calculations because they recite specific implementations of
"determining target values for automatic gain control," "performing noise
reduction," and "combining the noise reduced signals." These specific
implementations apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way to a
particular technological environment and, as such, the claim as a whole is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See
MPEP § 2106.0S(e).
9
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
Accordingly, we determine that, although claim 30 is directed to a
judicial exception, the claim includes additional elements that "integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application." We do not sustain the
Examiner's patent eligibility rejection of claim 30 or the remaining claims
for similar reasons.
B. 35U.S.C.§103
Appellants argue error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 30 for a
number of reasons. App. Br. 5-12. Appellants argue that McArthur is
irrelevant to "determining a dominant speaker signal from a plurality of
speakers in the plurality of signals at a given time" because "McArthur
discloses two microphones positioned to pick up essentially the same voice
content." Id. at 5; see also App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants further
argue that "McArthur requires reliance on coherence of the same voice
content at the different microphones," "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the [art]
will immediately recognize that coherence of signals is completely useless
for processing speech from different speakers," and "signal coherence is
entirely useless for determining a dominant speaker from multiple speakers
generating speech." Appellants contend the Examiner errs in determining
that "claim 30 'does not require that each speaker-dedicated microphone is
located proximate a different person in the vehicle."' Id. at 6 ( quoting Final
Act. 4--5).
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of error because the
Examiner does not rely exclusively on McArthur for the argued limitation.
See Ans. 5-7, 15-16. "Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
10
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
The Examiner finds as follows:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to have modified McArthur in
view of Nongpiur (multiple microphones and a speaker) to
incorporate the teachings of Buck (multiple microphones and
multiple speakers). Noise sources in an automobile can reduce
the intelligibility and clarity of speech signals and speech
recognition accuracy (Buck [0005-0009]). Thus, one of ordinary
skill in the art could have placed the multiple microphone noise
reduction system of McArthur in view of N ongpiur in a vehicle
environment, as analogously taught by Buck's microphone array
for noise suppression being placed in a vehicle. Doing so would
allow the system of McArthur in view of N ongpiur to improve
telephony/hands-free operation of devices in a vehicle
(McArthur [0004-0006]).
Ans. 7. Appellants' arguments against the references individually (App. Br.
5-12; Reply Br. 2--4) do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings and
conclusion as to the combined teachings of the references.
Appellants also argue as follows:
In addition, it is completely unreasonable to use beamforming
noise reduction, as taught by Buck, with the SNR/correlation
system of McArthur, or with the single microphone PLC low
frequency noise reduction system of N ongpuir. The
beamforming system of Buck is absolutely incompatible with
McArthur and Nongpuir. There is simply no reasonable rationale
for one of ordinary skill in the art to read and understand
McArthur and look to LPC low frequency noise reduction in the
single microphone system of Nongpuir. Nor would one of
ordinary skill in the art read McArthur, or Nongpuir, and
remotely consider Buck's adaptive beamforming, as they are
completely incompatible with entirely different processing
required.
App. 13.
11
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
Appellants' contentions here are unpersuasive of error. In rejecting
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Examiner can satisfy
this burden by showing "'some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). "'The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results."' Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 416).
Appellants' contentions above amount to bald assertions without
evidentiary support or persuasive explanation. As such, they do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning, namely that "one of ordinary skill in the art could have placed
the multiple microphone noise reduction system of McArthur in view of
Nongpiur in a vehicle environment, as analogously taught by Buck's
microphone array for noise suppression being placed in a vehicle" because
"[d]oing so would allow the system of McArthur in view ofNongpiur to
improve telephony/hands-free operation of devices in a vehicle." Ans. 7
( citing McArthur ,r,r 4--6).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection
of claim 30 and of the rejections of the remaining claims, which Appellants
do not separately argue. See App. Br. 5-13.
12
Appeal2018-002483
Application 13/990, 176
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41-
43, 48, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. However, the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41--43, 48, and
50 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed. The Examiner's decision is affirmed
because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
13