Ex Parte Grokop et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2017

14186730 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 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.
14/186,730 02/21/2014 Leonard Henry Grokop Ill 174C1 (900698) 5941
15093 7590 09/14/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
THOMAS-HOMESCU, ANNE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2017 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):
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 LEONARD HENRY GROKOP,
VIDYA NARAYANAN, JAMES W. DOLTER,
and SANJIV NANDA
Appeal 2016-003047
Application 14/186,7301
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2—31, which are all the claims pending in the application. A hearing
was held on August 31, 2017. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to capturing and analyzing a subset of a
continuous audio stream. Spec. Abstract.
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Qualcomm Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003047
Application 14/186,730
Illustrative Claim
Claim 2 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
2. A method for performing an audio analysis, the method
comprising:
receiving, by a computerized device, a continuous audio
stream;
capturing, by the computerized device, from the
continuous audio stream, a collection of audio frames from
a plurality of audio blocks of the continuous audio stream,
wherein:
each audio block of the plurality of audio blocks
includes multiple audio frames', and
capturing the collection of audio frames comprises
capturing a single audio frame from each audio
block of the plurality of audio blocks',
analyzing, by the computerized device, the collection of
audio frames; and
determining, based on analyzing the collection of audio
frames, a characteristic of an ambient environment of the
continuous audio stream.
Rejections
Claims 2—6, 8—14, 16—21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 11.
Claims 2—6, 24—28, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Malkin, The CLEAR 2006 CMU Acoustic
Environment Classification System, CLEAR 2006, pp. 323—30 (2007); Ellis
et al., Minimal-Impact Audio-Based Personal Archives, CARPE (2004); and
Gavalda (US 2011/0218798 Al; Sept. 8, 2011). Final Act. 12.
2
Appeal 2016-003047
Application 14/186,730
Claims 10-14 and 17—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Malkin, Ellis, Gavalda, and Lacroix et al.
(US 2008/0223627 Al; Sept. 18, 2008). Final Act. 21.
Claims 8 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Malkin; Ellis; Gavalda; and Cristoph et al.,
Automatic Context Detection of a Mobile User. Final Act. 25.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Malkin, Ellis, Gavalda, and Burke et al. (US 2013/0013316
Al; Jan. 10, 2013). Final Act. 27.
Claims 16 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Malkin, Ellis, Gavalda, Lacroix, and Burke. Final
Act. 28-29.
Claims 2—31 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 8,700,406. Final
Act. 4~11.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding claim 2 is directed to
ineligible subject matter under § 101?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Gavalda teaches or suggests
“capturing a single audio frame from each audio block of the plurality of
audio blocks” and “each audio block of the plurality of audio blocks
includes multiple audio frames,” as recited in claim 2?
3
Appeal 2016-003047
Application 14/186,730
ANALYSIS
§101: Non-Statutory Subject Matter
The Examiner concludes the rejected claims “are directed to the
abstract idea of ‘a generic audio analysis’.” Final Act. 11.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s conclusion. The Federal Circuit
has said “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and
untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the
exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has
“previously cautioned that courts must be careful to avoid oversimplifying
the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account for the
specific requirements of the claims.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). We
agree with Appellants that calling the claims a “generic audio analysis”
oversimplifies the claims and fails to account for the specific requirements
of capturing only a single frame from each block, analyzing the collection of
captured frames, and determining a characteristic of an ambient environment
based on that analysis. See App. Br. 7—8.
“The Board’s primary role is to review the adverse decision as
presented by the Examiner, and not to conduct its own separate examination
of the claims.” MPEP § 1213.02. Thus, we address only the 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 rejection as set forth in the Final Office Action, which is the decision
from which Appellants appeal. See also 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (“An applicant
for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from
the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”);
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (“The Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall. . . review
4
Appeal 2016-003047
Application 14/186,730
adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents pursuant to
section 134(a).”).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—
6, 8-14, 16-21, and 23 under § 101.
§ 103: Obviousness
Claim 2 recites “capturing a single audio frame from each audio block
of the plurality of audio blocks” and “each audio block of the plurality of
audio blocks includes multiple audio frames.”
Appellants argue “Gavalda discloses capturing features during each
2.5 ms.” App. Br. 12. “Thus, rather than teaching sampling only a small
subset of audio data from a number of blocks of audio data, Gavalda teaches
that one should sample all frames within a time period.” Id.
Gavalda discloses “to measure features f such as power . . . during
some portion of a frame period.” Gavalda 127 (emphasis added). “In one
example, the features are obtained periodically during each 2.5 ms of a
frame period.” Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner identifies the claimed “block” as “the extracted portion
plus the un-extracted portion, ending at the start of the next block.” Ans. 7.
We agree with this finding. Gavalda discloses measuring only some portion
(i.e., obtaining features only periodically). Gavalda 127. As the Examiner
found, this means Gavalda teaches a measured portion followed by a non-
measured portion, and the claimed “block” includes both the measured
portion and the non-measured portion.2 Thus, the thrust of the Examiner’s
2 We observe that Gavalda’s 2.5 ms consists of multiple frames, some of
which measure power and some of which do not. As such, Gavalda’s
5
Appeal 2016-003047
Application 14/186,730
rejection is correct that Gavalda teaches or suggests capturing a single audio
frame (i.e., the periodic frame from which the feature is obtained) from each
of the plurality of audio blocks.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, and
claims 3—6, 8—14, 16—21, 23—28, 30, and 31, which Appellants argue are
patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 11—13; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Appellants state, “The Appellant is not contesting the double
patenting rejections at this time.” App. Br. 6.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2—31 for double patenting.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 2—6, 8—14, 16—21, 23—28, 30, and 31 under § 103 and claims 2—31 for
double patenting. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2—6,
8—14, 16—21, and 23 under § 101. Because we affirm at least one rejection
for every appealed claim, we designate this Decision an affirmance.
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
“period” would meet the claimed block (i.e., including one frame of
measurement and all the non-measuring frames until the next measurement).
6