Ex Parte King et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2018

13675844 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/675,844 11/13/2012
108982 7590 11/29/2018
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific A venue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian John King
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.
2765US01 9952
EXAMINER
JEREZ LORA, WILLIAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2654
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2018 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN JOHN KING, GAUTHAM J. MYSORE, and
PARIS SMARAGDIS
Appeal2018-000362
Application 13/675,844
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-3, 5-19, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2018-000362
Application 13/675,844
BACKGROUND
The present patent application concerns "[t]ime interval sound
alignment techniques." Specification ,r 3, filed November 13, 2012. Claims
1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed invention:
1. A method implemented by one or more computing devices,
the method comprising:
receiving one or more inputs via interaction with a user
interface that indicate that a first time interval in a first
representation of sound data generated from a first sound signal
corresponds to a second time interval in a second representation
of sound data generated from a second sound signal;
calculating a stretch value based on an amount of time
represented in the first and second time intervals, respectively;
and
generating aligned sound data from the sound data for the
first and second time intervals based on the calculated stretch
value, such that the generating is performed regardless of the
alignment of spectral characteristics identified in the sound data
of the first and second time intervals, respectively.
Appeal Brief 10, filed December 12, 2016 ("App. Br.").
1-3,5-7,9--12, 14--19,
21
8,22
13
REJECTIONS
§ 103(a)
§ I03(a)
§ I03(a)
1 SONAR XI Reference Guide (copyright 2010).
2 Slaney (US 5,749,073; May 5, 1998).
3 Fevrier et al. (US 2005/0198448 Al; Sept. 8, 2005).
2
SONAR1
SONAR, Slaney2
SONAR, Fevrier3
Appeal2018-000362
Application 13/675,844
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and Appellants'
arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner's reasoning,
findings, and conclusions for the rejections in the Final Office Action mailed
July 19, 2016 ("Final Act.") and the Answer mailed April 13, 2017 ("Ans.").
Claim 1 recites "generating aligned sound data from the sound data
for the first and second time intervals based on the calculated stretch value,
such that the generating is performed regardless of the alignment of spectral
characteristics identified in the sound data of the first and second time
intervals, respectively." App. Br. 10 ( emphasis added). Appellants argue
SONAR does not teach or suggest the emphasized element because SONAR
"does in fact regard heavily the alignment of the spectral characteristics"
when aligning sound data. App. Br. 7. Appellants point out that SONAR
states "[ w ]hen stretching or quantizing multi-track audio, it is critical to
maintain the phase relationships of the original recording" and assert
SONAR aims "to sync up timing of musical tracks by aligning the transient
peaks that are out of alignment." App. Br. 6, 7. Appellants assert that
SONAR therefore "cannot replace sound data with overdub audio" as
described in the written description. App. Br. 7.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. Although SONAR
discusses maintaining phase relationships and aligning transient peaks when
editing sound data, as found by the Examiner, SONAR also suggests
aligning sound data without considering the data's spectral characteristics.
SONAR discloses a program called AudioSnap and provides an
example of using Audio Snap "[ t Jo adjust the timing of a multi-track [audio]
performance while maintaining phase relationships." SONAR 595.
3
Appeal2018-000362
Application 13/675,844
According to SONAR, AudioSnap can find transients ("areas where the
level increases suddenly") in multi-track audio, place transient markers in
the tracks, and use the transient markers to align the tracks. See SONAR
573, 595-99. As noted by Appellants, SONAR discloses "[ w ]hen stretching
or quantizing multi-track audio, it is critical to maintain the phase
relationships of the original recording" and describes using transient markers
to do so. SONAR 595-99. SONAR explains that although "AudioSnap finds
transients automatically ... transient markers don't always appear exactly
where you might want them for the kind of editing you want to do" and
"sometimes you achieve the best results by editing the markers manually."
SONAR 573. SONAR discloses "[y]ou can edit the markers by moving
them to new locations, adding markers, filtering out markers, deleting
markers, and promoting markers." SONAR 573.
Given these disclosures, the Examiner determined that even though
SONAR does not "explicitly state" the disputed element, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to manually edit AudioSnap's
transient markers and then run AudioSnap for the manually edited markers.
Final Act. 4 ( citing SONAR 573). The Examiner found that because an
AudioSnap user would not have been "limited to using spectral
characteristic[s] identified in the sound data" to manually edit the markers,
running AudioSnap with the manually edited markers would have generated
aligned sound data in the claimed manner. See Final Act. 4--5 ( citing
SONAR 573, 595); see also Ans. 13.
SONAR provides adequate support for the Examiner's
determinations. SONAR explains that although AudioSnap can
automatically find transients and edit transient markers, the transient
markers "don't always appear exactly where you might want them/or the
4
Appeal2018-000362
Application 13/675,844
kind of editing you want to do" and "sometimes you achieve the best results
by editing the markers manually." SONAR 573 (emphasis added). To allow
users to perform "the kind of editing [they] want to do," SONAR teaches
that users can edit transient markers by, among other things, "moving them
to new locations." SONAR 573. The cited portions of SONAR do not limit
how or where a user can move the transient markers. In fact, by stating that
users sometimes need to move transient markers "for the kind of editing
[they] want to do," SONAR suggests that users can move transient markers
wherever their editing needs require.
SONAR's disclosure that "[w]hen stretching or quantizing multi-track
audio, it is critical to maintain the phase relationships of the original
recording" does not undermine the Examiner's analysis. Even assuming
Audio Snap users generally want to maintain the phase relationships of the
original recording when adjusting multi-track audio, SONAR suggests users
may want to adjust AudioSnap's transient markers "for the kind of editing
[they] want to do" and explains that users can do so by manually moving the
markers. SONAR 573. And, as discussed above, SONAR suggests users can
move the markers without considering the spectral characteristics of sound
data. See SONAR 573. Thus, even if users often want to maintain phase
relationships when aligning sound data, SONAR suggests that users can
employ AudioSnap to align sound data without maintaining these phase
relationships.
Finally, claim 1 does not recite replacing sound data with overdub
audio, so we find Appellants' argument on this point unpersuasive. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) ("Many of appellant's arguments
fail from the outset because, as the solicitor has pointed out, they are not
based on limitations appearing in the claims."). Moreover, this argument
5
Appeal2018-000362
Application 13/675,844
rests on Appellants' assertion that SONAR requires maintaining a phase
relationship when adjusting audio, but as explained above, SONAR suggests
otherwise.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Because Appellants have not presented separate, persuasive arguments for
claims 2, 3, 5-19, 21, and 22, we also sustain the Examiner's rejections of
these claims.
1-3 5-7 9-, '
12, 14--19,
21
8,22
13
Summary
§ 103(a)
§ 103(a)
§ 103(a)
CONCLUSION
SONAR
SONAR,
Slane
SONAR,
Fevrier
1-3 5-7 9-, '
12, 14--19,
21
8,22
13
1-3 5-19
' ' 21,22
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6