Ex Parte Gardner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 21, 2012

10669475 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM GARDNER, AHMAD JALALI,
and JACK STEENSTRA
____________

Appeal 2009-012731
Application 10/669,475
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012731
Application 10/669,475

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-35, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Brief (filed Jan. 30, 2009) and the Answer (mailed Apr. 1,
2009) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only
those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other
arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to data communication using sound and
includes a data coder configured to convert transmitted digital data into one
or more types of sound parameters. A sound synthesizer is coupled to the
data coder and is configured to generate sound based on the one or more
types of sound parameters. Further included is apparatus for receiving the
generated sound which includes an analyzer to extract the one or more types
of sound parameters, and a decoder coupled to the sound analyzer to convert
the extracted one or more types of sound parameters into digital data See
generally Spec. ¶ [0008].
Representative claims 1 and 6 are illustrative of the claimed invention
and read as follows:
1. An apparatus for use in transmitting digital data through an audio
channel, the apparatus comprising:
Appeal 2009-012731
Application 10/669,475

3
a data coder configured to convert the digital data into one or more
types of sound parameters; and
a sound synthesizer coupled to the data coder and configured to
convert the one or more types of sound parameters into acoustic sound
waves to acoustically transfer the digital data.

6. An apparatus for use in receiving digital data through an audio
channel, the apparatus comprising:
a sound analyzer configured to receive acoustic sound waves and to
extract one or more types of sound parameters from the received acoustic
sound waves; and
a data decoder coupled to the sound analyzer and configured to
convert the extracted one or more types of sound parameters into the digital
data.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Harada US 6,038,529 Mar. 14, 2000
White US 6,408,272 B1 June 18, 2002
Claims 1-35, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada in view of White.1

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 27-
30. However, we observe that claims 27-30 recite “a machine readable
medium” which comprises codes for performing various functions. There is
no recitation that the codes are stored on the medium or are in a “non-
transitory” state. In case of further prosecution of claims 27-30, the
Examiner’s attention is directed to recently issued guidance from the
Director and our reviewing courts. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed.
Cir. 2007); Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351
OFFICIAL GAZETTE U.S. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
Appeal 2009-012731
Application 10/669,475

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 11-15, 21-23, 27, 28, and 31-34
Appellants’ arguments, with respect to the obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 1, contend that White does not overcome
what the Examiner has identified as the deficiency in Harada, i.e., the
coupling of a sound synthesizer to the data coder as claimed.2 According to
Appellants (Br. 6), White’s speech generation engine 42 either plays back
stored recordings or uses a text-to-speech process to convert e-mail
messages to audible speech. In Appellants’ view, White has no teaching of a
sound synthesizer which uses sound parameters to generate audio signals.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of any error in the
Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 3, 4, 13, 14). As illustrated in step 112 of
White’s Figure 4 flow chart, along with the accompanying description
beginning at column 17, line 18, of White, and White’s Fig. 2 along with the
accompanying description beginning at column 10, line 63, data/speech is
transmitted from local device 14 to remote system 12. As described, speech
parameters are extracted from input speech in processing component 28
which can then generate synthesized responses from speech generator 42.
We also find that, since White discloses (e.g., col. 18, ll. 7-8) that
speech is transferred between local and remote devices, Appellants’
argument (Br. 6-7) that White does not acoustically transfer digital data is
unpersuasive. We further find that White’s disclosed speech transfer
operation is remarkably similar to Appellants’ disclosed vocoder

2 Appellants argue rejected claims 1-5, 11-15, 21-23, 27, 28, and 31-34
together as a group, making particular reference only to language appearing
in independent claim 1. See Br. 6-7. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-012731
Application 10/669,475

5
embodiment (Spec. ¶¶ [0046]-[0049]; Figs. 6, 7) in which data is converted
into speech parameters and synthesized speech is transmitted between
devices.
Further, we find that the Examiner (Ans. 4, 13, 14) has provided an
articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the
conclusion of obviousness for the proposed combination of Harada and
White. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Contrary to
Appellants’ contentions (Br. 7), we find that the addition of White’s speech
synthesizer to Harada would not render Harada unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose of converting and transmitting audio information, but,
instead, would advantageously provide a user with a verbal verification of
what is actually being transmitted.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-5, 11-15, 21-23, 27,
28, and 31-34, not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

Claims 6-10, 16-20, 24-26, 29-33, and 35
Appellants’ arguments, with respect to the obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 6, which is directed to the receiving of
digital data, contend that Harada does not disclose a sound analyzer which
receives acoustic waves and extracts sound parameters from the acoustic
waves.3 According to Appellants, Harada merely discloses a receiver which
receives RF signals and converts the RF signals into digital data and,

3 Appellants argue rejected claims 6-10, 16-20, 24-26, 29-33, and 35 together
as a group, making particular reference only to language appearing in
independent claim 6. See Br. 7-9. Accordingly, we select claim 6 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-012731
Application 10/669,475

6
therefore, does not have a sound analyzer which receives acoustic sound
waves and extracts sound parameters as claimed (Br. 8-9).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As alluded to by the
Examiner (Ans. 14), the obviousness rejection is based on the combination
of Harada and White. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s ultimate
determination that the Harada/White combination would include a sound
synthesizer/analyzer to acoustically transfer sound waves from which sound
parameters are extracted and decoded to produce output sound at the
receiver end of the systems illustrated in Figures 2-4 of Harada.
We also find that the entirety of each of Harada’s Figures 2-4 systems
could alternatively be reasonably interpreted as corresponding to the claimed
“apparatus for use in receiving digital data . . . .” In this interpretation, the
encoder (13, Fig. 2) corresponds to the claimed sound analyzer since it
receives acoustic sound waves 11 and encodes, i.e., extracts, sound
parameters from the input audio signal 11. The data decoder (26, Fig. 2),
which is coupled to the encoder 13, converts the extracted sound parameters
into digital data as claimed.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
representative independent claim 6, as well as claims 7-10, 16-20, 24-26, 29-
33, and 35 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.4

4 Claims 31-33, which combine the transmitting and receiving features and
have not been argued separately, are included by Appellants in the claim
groupings of both separately argued claims 1 and 6 (Br. 7-9).
Appeal 2009-012731
Application 10/669,475

7
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-35 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

babc