Ex Parte Graumann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 1, 2009

09603939 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte DAVID L. GRAUMANN
________________

Appeal 2008-5622
Application 09/603,939
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided: June 1, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF, and CARLA M.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 to 20 and 30 to 36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will reverse the rejections.
Appellant has invented a method and system for generating an
enhanced telephone transmission signal in the frequency domain. The
enhanced telephone transmission signal is comprised of a carrier signal that
is modulated with a data signal to form a modulated carrier signal at a carrier
Appeal 2008-5622
Application 09/603,939

frequency, a masking signal that masks the carrier signal from being audible
by a human ear, and an audio signal with a frequency band removed that
surrounds the carrier frequency (Fig. 3; Spec. 4 to 10; Abstract).
Claims 1 and 30 are representative of the claims on appeal, and they
read as follows:
1. A method of generating an enhanced acoustic transmission signal,
the method comprising:
generating a carrier signal;
receiving data and generating a data signal representing the data;
modulating the carrier signal with the data signal to form a modulated
carrier signal at a carrier frequency;
generating a masking signal to mask the modulated carrier signal from
being audible by a human ear;
receiving audio and generating an audio signal based on the audio;
removing a frequency band surrounding the carrier frequency from
the audio signal; and
combining the modulated carrier signal, the masking signal, and the
audio signal to form the enhanced acoustic transmission signal.

30. A method to generate an output audio signal, comprising:
removing a range of frequencies in an audio signal to produce a
notched audio signal;
generating a masking signal that falls entirely within one portion of
the range of frequencies;
generating a data signal that falls entirely within the range of
frequencies and apart from the one portion; and
combining the notched audio signal, the masking signal, and the data
signal to form the output audio signal.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bassani US 4,035,838 July 12, 1977
Best US 4,876,617 Oct. 24, 1989
Neubauer US 6,584,138 B1 Jun. 24, 2003
(filed Jan. 24, 1997)
Appeal 2008-5622
Application 09/603,939

Boney, “Digital Watermarks for Audio Signals,” IEEE Proceedings of
MULTIMEDIA ’96, 1996, pages 473 to 480.

The Examiner rejected claims 30 to 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based upon the teachings of Best.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Neubauer and Best.
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Neubauer, Best, and Boney.
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Neubauer, Best, and Bassani.
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Neubauer.
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Neubauer and Boney.
ISSUES
Anticipation
With respect to claim 30, Appellant argues (Br. 13) that “[e]ven if the
programme signal that passes through filters 10, 11 could be considered a
masking signal, such a masking signal spanning the frequency range of 1-6
kHz would not fall entirely within one portion of either of the notches at
2883 Hz and 3417 Hz.” Appellant additionally argues (Br. 13) that “Best
also fails to disclose receiving a combined audio signal including a masking
signal residing in a frequency range, a data signal residing in the frequency
range, and audio information residing outside the frequency range and
separating the masking and the data signal from the audio information, as
recited in independent claim 34.” Thus, the issues before us are:
3
Appeal 2008-5622
Application 09/603,939
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred by finding that Best
generates a masking signal that falls entirely within one portion of the range
of frequencies removed from the audio signal to produce a notched audio
signal?
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred by finding that Best
describes audio information with a frequency residing outside of the
frequency range of the masking signal?
Obviousness
Appellant argues (Br. 17, 18, and 20) that the applied references fail
to teach the removal of a frequency band surrounding the carrier frequency
from the audio signal as set forth in claims 1 to 20. Thus, the issue before us
is:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred by finding that the
applied references teach removal of a frequency band surrounding the carrier
frequency from the audio signal?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The notched frequency band in the audio signal 190 of Appellant’s
invention encompasses or surrounds the modulated carrier frequency 160
(i.e., 300 Hz to 3.8 kHz) and the masking signal frequency 170 (i.e., 6.6 kHz
to 7.4 kHz) (Fig. 3; Spec. 5 and 6).
2. Best teaches a notched audio frequency band of 2.883 kHz to 3.417
kHz, a modulated carrier frequency band of 2.883 kHz to 3.417 kHz, and a
masking signal frequency band of 1.0 kHz to 6.0 kHz (Figs. 1 and 2;
Abstract; col. 2, ll. 17 to 41).
3. Neubauer describes a coding method that introduces an inaudible
data signal into an audio signal IN. A pseudo-noise signal 106 and a data
signal 104 are multiplied together to produce a frequency-spread data signal
4
Appeal 2008-5622
Application 09/603,939
that is in turn weighted at weighting block 112 with a masking threshold
w(ω) formed from the input audio signal IN. Thereafter, the weighted data
signal and the audio signal IN on line 120 are superimposed at superposition
means 116 to form an output audio signal with an inaudible data signal (Fig.
1; Abstract; col. 9, ll. 1 to 51; col. 14, ll. 14 to 29).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
Obviousness
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness, and the Appellant has the burden of presenting a rebuttal to
the prima facie case. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
ANALYSIS

Anticipation
The method according to claims 30 to 33 generates a masking
frequency that “falls entirely within” one portion of the range of the notched
frequency band (FF 1). As indicated supra, Best describes a masking
frequency (i.e., 1.0 kHz to 6.0 kHz) that encompasses or surrounds the
notched frequency band (i.e., 2.883 kHz to 3.417 kHz) (FF 2).
The method according to claims 34 to 36 has audio information
residing “outside” of the masking signal frequency range of 6.6 kHz to 7.4
5
Appeal 2008-5622
Application 09/603,939
kHz (FF 1). As indicated supra, Best describes audio information that
resides only “inside” the masking signal frequency range.
Thus, we agree with Appellant that Best fails to disclose the noted
method steps. It follows that anticipation has not been established by the
Examiner because Best does not disclose each and every limitation of the
claimed invention set forth in claims 30 to 36. Atlas Powder Co., 190 F.3d
at 1347; Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1478-79.
Obviousness
Turning first to the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 to 10,
12, 13, and 16 to 19, the Examiner acknowledges (Final Rej. 5) that
Neubauer (FF 3) does not disclose removing a frequency band surrounding
the carrier frequency from the audio signal. As indicated supra (FF 2), Best
does not describe such a method step because the notched audio frequency
band and the carrier frequency band are the same size.
A prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed subject matter set
forth in dependent claims 3, 6, 11, 14, 15, and 20 has not been established by
the Examiner because the teachings of the references to Boney and Bassani
both fail to cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Neubauer and
Best. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Anticipation
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
Best generates a masking signal that falls entirely within one portion of the
range of frequencies removed from the audio signal to produce a notched
audio signal.
6
Appeal 2008-5622
Application 09/603,939
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
Best describes audio information with a frequency residing outside of the
frequency range of the masking signal.
Obviousness
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
the applied references teach removal of a frequency band surrounding the
carrier frequency from the audio signal.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 30 to 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1
to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

gvw

GROSSMAN, TUCKER, PERREAULT & PFLEGER,PLLC
C/O INTELLEVATE
P.O. BOX 52050
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
7