Ex Parte Chan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

12621156 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

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.
12/621,156 11/18/2009 Kwokleung Chan 092205 (1059691) 1926
15093 7590
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
MONIKANG, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcominst@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KWOKLEUNG CHAN, REN LI, and HYUN JIN PARK
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board by Administrative Patent Judge BARRY.
Opinion concurring by Administrative Patent Judge MOORE.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1—5, 7—15, 17—25, 27—35, and 37-45, which are all the
pending claims. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention “relates to signal
processing techniques, especially PDM [(pulse density modulation)] domain
signal processing and, more particularly but not restricted to, active noise
cancellation in the digital domain for audio applications.” Spec. 11.
Claim 1 is representative of the independent claims,2 and claim 42 is
representative of dependent claims 42—45:3
1. An apparatus comprising:
a down sample unit; and
an up sample unit, wherein the down sample unit and the
up sample unit combined together produce a combined delay,
wherein the down sample unit and the up sample unit are each
tunable such that the combined delay associated with
processing a sample via the down sample unit and the up
sample unit corresponds to a delay that [is] associated with one
or more tap delays of a filter configured to filter samples in a
down-sampled domain.
42. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the combined
delay associated with processing the sample via the down
sample unit and the up sample unit is tunable based on a
sampling ratio of the down sample unit and the up sample unit.
App. Br. 21, 29 (Claims App’x).
2 Claims 1, 11,21, and 31 are independent. Claims 11,21, and 31 are
commensurate in scope with claim 1 (see App. Br. 21—27 (Claims App’x)),
stand rejected on the same basis as claim 1 (see Non-Final Act. 7—8), and
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in the rejection of claims 1, 11,21, and
31 for the same reasons (see App. Br. 8—15).
3 Claims 43—45 are commensurate in scope with claim 42 (see App. Br. 29
(Claims App’x)), stand rejected on the same basis as claim 42 (see Non-
Final Act. 10), and Appellants argue the Examiner errs in the rejection of
claims 42-45 for the same reasons (see App. Br. 15—19).
2
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
Rejections
Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112,12. Non-
Final Act. 3.
Claims 1—5, 7—15, 17—25, 27—35, and 37-40 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Asada et al. (EP 1970902 A2;
pub. Sept. 17, 2008) and Goorevich et al. (US 2006/0013422 Al; pub. Jan.
19, 2006). Non-Final Act. 4—8
Claim 41 stands rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Asada,
Goorevich, and Goubran et al. (US 2004/0146168 Al; pub. July 29, 2004).
Non-Final Act. 8.
Claims 42-45 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Asada, Goorevich, and Singerl et al. (US 2008/0032642 Al; pub. Feb. 7,
2008). Non-Final Act. 8—10.
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, f 2 Rejection of Claim 10
Because Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112
rejection of claim 10, we summarily affirm that rejection.4
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 1
The Examiner finds Asada’s decimation and interpolation filters teach
claim 1 ’s down and up sample units, including the requirement “wherein the
down sample unit and the up sample unit are each tunable such that the
combined delay associated with processing a sample via the down sample
4 The basis for this rejection is a lack of antecedent basis for claim 10’s
recitation of “the predefined delay.” Non-Final Act. 3. Although they do
not stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 by the Examiner, we note claims 8,
30, and 38 include the same language. In the event of further prosecution of
these claims, the Examiner and Appellants should address this issue.
3
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
unit and the up sample unit corresponds to a delay.” Non-Final Act. 4
(citing Asada H 91, 97, 189—93, Fig. 5A-5B). The Examiner also finds
Goorevich discloses a down sampling filter that implements a delay, and that
the combination of Asada and Goorevich teaches the recited requirement for
the combined delay associated with processing a sample via the down and
up sample units to “correspond^ to a delay that [is] associated with one or
more tap delays of a filter configured to filter samples in a down-sampled
domain.” Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Goorevich 139). The Examiner further
finds the Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters that implement Asada’s
decimation and interpolation filters “include taps[,] with the addition and
removal of each tap impacting the delay such that this addition and removal
of taps is read as the delay being adjusted/tuned.” Ans. 10 (citing Asada
1185); see also id. at 11 (stating Goorevich “is merely used as a support
reference to emphasize the concept that the delay is implemented via a down
sample filter”). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
modify Asada with the teachings of Goorevich to achieve claim 1 “for the
purpose of improving sound percepts.” Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because, “[i]n contrast to the
subject matter of claim 1, Asada fails to disclose or suggest ‘wherein the
down sample unit and the up sample unit are each tunable . . . App. Br.
8. Appellants acknowledge Asada teaches the desirability “that the signal
delay significantly caused by the decimation filter 5 (5 A and 5B) and the
interpolation filter 7 within the first noise cancellation signal processing
system be reduced, because a factor for lessening the noise cancellation
effect is thereby reduced accordingly, so that the noise cancellation effect is
heightened.” Id. at 9 (quoting Asada 1189)). Appellants contend, however,
4
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
that Asada’s “desire to reduce delays in no way implies that a delay is
tunable, or ‘adjustable’ as characterized by the Examiner.” Id. Appellants
further argue the Examiner errs in finding a rationale for why an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Asada and Goorevich
as proposed by the Examiner. Id. at 10—12.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. As the Examiner explains,
and we agree, Asada discloses reducing the delay of the decimation filter
(the down sample unit) and the delay of the interpolation filter (the up
sample unit) to improve noise cancellation. Ans. 9-10 (citing Asada 185,
189-93). As discussed in more detail infra, we agree that ordinarily skilled
artisans would have understood this disclosure of adjusting decimation and
interpolation filter delays for delay minimization teaches that Asada’s up
and down sample units each are tunable, as recited. Such artisans also
would have understood Asada’s disclosure of using FIR filters in the
decimation filter teaches using taps for the down sampling delay so that the
minimized delay “corresponds to a delay that [is] associated with one or
more tap delays of a filter configured to filter samples in a down-sampled
domain,” as recited. Ans. 10.
Appellants argue in reply that “[t]he Examiner’s further allegation that
a delay is being ‘adjusted’ or ‘tuned’ in such manner is also false. Asada
explicitly teaches that the signal delays are reduced ‘when the minimum
phase FIR filter is adopted.’ Reply Br. 6 (citing Asada 1193) (additionally
contending “Asada uses no form of the word ‘adjust’, and the word ‘tune’
appears in Asada only as a synonym for ‘song’”). This is unpersuasive.
Appellants read Asada too narrowly. The teaching in the prior art reference
need not be ipsissimis verbis. Structural Rubber Products v. Park Rubber,
5
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
749 F.2d 707, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Asada extensively discusses that its
filters can, in whole or in part, be implemented either as hardware or by a
programmable digital signal processor (DSP). See, e.g., Asada H 100-101,
107 (noting “the DSP ... is advantageous in terms of flexibility in the
change of the filter characteristics and designs and so on”), 115, 150-57
(explaining programmability of, inter alia, decimation and interpolation
filter settings). Ordinarily skilled artisans would have understood that
programmable changing of the characteristics and settings of the decimation
and interpolation filters includes changing their delays and constitutes
“tuning” those filters, as recited.
Regarding the Examiner’s proposed combination of Asada and
Goorevich, Appellants argue the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining
their teachings, i.e., “for the purpose of improving sound percepts,” is
conclusory and amounts to mere speculation. App. Br. 10. Appellants
contend that because Goorevich relates to speech processing of an audio
output signal, whereas Asada relates to noise cancellation on an audio input
signal, there would have been no reason for ordinarily skilled artisans to
have combined their teachings. Id. at 11—12. Appellants also contend that
Asada teaches to minimize delay, whereas the Examiner’s proposed
modification based on Goorevich adds delay, and so Asada teaches away
from the Examiner’s proposed modification based on Goorevich. Id. at 12.
In full recognition of the danger of hindsight bias, we find these
arguments unpersuasive. Goorevich and Asada are both analogous art to the
claimed invention, and ordinarily skilled artisans would have understood the
technical issues underlying signal processing for a headphone device (Asada
13) and for a hearing aid (Goorevich | 6) are highly related. As mentioned
6
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
supra, the Examiner cites Goorevich simply to reinforce the teachings of
Asada (Ans. 11) and does not rely on Goorevich as the basis for a significant
modification of Asada. Both Asada and Goorevich certainly have a primary
goal of improving signal processing for sound perception. See Asada 2—
10; Goorevich || 3—7. Although Goorevich relates to speech processing of
an audio output signal whereas Asada relates to noise cancellation on an
audio input signal, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted); see also In
reNievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
Asada does not teach away from combining its teachings with the
teachings of Goorevich. A teaching away requires a reference to actually
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “A finding that two
inventions were designed to resolve different problems ... is insufficient to
demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car,
Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants provide no persuasive argument or evidence that the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Goorevich’s teachings with Asada was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int I Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)); see also
KSR, 550 at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
7
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
creativity, not an automaton.”). The Examiner articulated a sufficient reason
with the necessary “rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir 2006) (cited with
approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 419).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
In doing so, we adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set
forth in the Final Rejection and in the Answer. We also, therefore, sustain
the rejection of claims 2—5, 7—15, 17—25, 27—35, and 37-41, for which
Appellants offer no arguments substantively separate from the arguments
presented for claim 1.
Claim 42
The Examiner finds Singerl teaches the recited requirement that claim
42 adds to claim 1. Non-Final Act. 9—10. The Examiner’s finds the benefit
of “compensating for non-linear unwanted effects” as the basis for
modifying Asada’s combined filter delay based on the sampling ratio as
taught by Singerl. Id. at 10.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s conclusory reason for why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have adapted the teachings of Singerl into
Asada is insufficient because Singerl teaches a system that performs up-
sampling before down-sampling that is incompatible with Asada’s system
that performs down-sampling before up-sampling. App. Br. 17. We agree
with Appellants.
The Examiner’s rationale for combining Singerl with Asada is simply
a restatement of the purpose Singerl’s invention, which addresses issues with
effects from nonlinear circuit elements for an “adaptive predistorter.” See
Singerl || 1—2. There is no rationale provided, however, for how or why
8
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
considerations for an adaptive predistorter or effects from nonlinear
elements would be relevant to improving active noise cancellation, which is
the specific relevant goal of the filter delay minimization in Asada’s system.
In view of the findings, reasons, and arguments before us, the rejection of
claim 42 does not sufficiently articulate a rational underpinning to support
the conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 42. For the
same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 43—45.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we—
affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 112,12 rejection of claim 10;
affirm the 35 U.S.C § 103(a) rejections of claims 1—5, 7—15, 17—25,
27—35, and 37-41; and
reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 42-45.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KWOKLEUNG CHAN, REN LI, and HYUN JIN PARK
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
I agree with the majority’s decision affirming the rejections of claims
1—5, 7—15, 17—25, 27—35, and 37-41 and reversing the rejection of claims
42^45, but for different reasons, which I explain below.
The portion of the Specification cited by Appellants in their Summary
of Claimed Subject Matter describes “a hybrid active noise cancellation
circuit that filters samples in the PDM and PCM domains.” (Spec. 1102,
cited at App. Br. 3). As shown in Figure 15, the input samples “are received
by the circuit and amplifier 151H filters in the PDM domain” and “CIC
down sampler 156 down samples the input samples to the PCM domain.”
(Id. ) The down sampled PCM samples are then “filtered by amplifiers
151 A-151G,” in which “gain factors may be selected to achieve the desired
signal amplification needed for active noise cancellation.” (Id.) After the
filtering, the PCM samples are up sampled by interpolator 157 and
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
“combined with the output of amplifier 151H to produce the circuit output,
which may comprise anti-noise.” {Id. at 103.) The Specification explains
that the decimator 156 and interpolator 157 “may be tuned to achieve a
desired delay between the application of amplifier 151H on a sample in the
PDM domain and the application of amplifiers 151A-151Gon that sample in
the PCM domain.” {Id. at 102.) In other words, the delay that is “tuned” is
that between the PDM domain sample and the PCM domain sample.
The claims do not capture what is described above. Claim 1, for
example, only recites up and down sampling units, requires that the
sampling units combine to produce a delay that is “tunable,” and requires
that the combined delay “corresponds to” a delay “associated with” tap
delays of a “filter configured to filter samples in a down-sampled domain.”
Because the claims do not require a signal with a higher sampling rate, or
that the combined delay be in any way related to a higher sampled signal,
they can be read to cover just the lower portion of the circuit shown in
Appellants’ Figure 15, from decimator 156 to interpolator 157, which is the
“down-sampled domain.” They thus cover a system, like that in Asada,
where a signal is down-sampled, processed, and then up-sampled, and the
delay in the sampling units may be tuned,5 for example by making it as short
as possible, as described in the reference. Because the delay caused by the
sampling units is of the same signal that is the subject of the filtering
51 agree with my colleagues with respect to “tuning,” as the claims do not
require that the tuning be performed while the system is in use, or in real
time, and Appellants do not point us to any evidence that such is the
meaning of that term in the art. It is sufficient, therefore, that Asada
describes an embodiment configured with decimation and interpolation
filters designed to minimize delay.
2
Appeal 2017-008847
Application 12/621,156
between them, it fairly can be said to “correspond to” the tap delays of those
filters. Appellants are not claiming that the combined delay corresponds to a
delay in the un-sampled domain.
I would affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 1, and the claims
argued with claim 1, because I believe Asada anticipates, and “anticipation
is the epitome of obviousness.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d
1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir.1983) (quoting In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794
(CCPA 1982)). Because Asada teaches all that is recited in these claims, it
is immaterial whether a motivation exists to combine with Goorevich, or
whether there is a “teaching away.”
3