14812138 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

Ex Parte RAVELLI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 30, 2018

14812138 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/812,138 07/29/2015 22918 7590 08/01/2018 PERKINS COIE LLP - PAO General P.O. BOX 1247 SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Emmanuel RA VELLI 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. 110971-8891.USOl 2360 EXAMINER AZAD,ABULK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2018 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): patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EMMANUEL RA VELLI, STEFAN DOEHLA, GUILLAUME FUCHS, ELENI FOTOPOULOU, and CHRISTIAN HELMRICH Appeal2018-000985 1 Application 14/812,138 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN,Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-23. We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur F oerderung der angewandten F orschung e. V. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2018-000985 Application 14/812,138 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosure relates to "audio coding and, in particular, to switched audio coding, where, for different portions of an audio signal, the encoded signal is generated using different encoding algorithms." Spec. 1 :9-11. Claims 1, 13, and 23 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphases added): 1. An apparatus for selecting one of a first encoding algorithm comprising a frrst characteristic and a second encoding algorithm comprising a second characteristic for encoding a portion of an audio signal to acquire an encoded version of the portion of the audio signal, comprising: a frrst estimator for estimating a frrst quality measure for the portion of the audio signal, the frrst quality measure being associated with the frrst encoding algorithm, without actually encoding and decoding the portion of the audio signal using the first encoding algorithm; a second estimator for estimating a second quality measure for the portion of the audio signal, the second quality measure being associated with the second encoding algorithm, without actually encoding and decoding the portion of the audio signal using the second encoding algorithm; and a controller for selecting the frrst encoding algorithm or the second encoding algorithm based on a comparison between the frrst quality measure and the second quality measure, wherein the frrst and second quality measures are SNRs ( signal to noise ratio) or segmental SNRs of the corresponding portion of a weighted version of the audio signal. 2 Appeal 2018-000985 Application 14/812,138 The Examiner's Rejections2 Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, and 17-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Helmrich (US 2013/0332177 Al; Dec. 12, 2013). Ans. 2. Claim 12 standsrejectedunder35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a)as being unpatentable over Helmrich in view of"well-known prior art." Final Act. 7. ANALYSIS Appellants "submit that [there] is no disclosure or suggestion in Helmrich to use SNR or segmental SNR as a quality measure in an open loop mode," unlike independent claim 1. Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that, although Helmrich "performs an open-loop mode for determining the quality result" of an encoding algorithm, "Helmrich fails to disclose or suggest what such a determination looks like in an open-loop mode." App. Br. 23 ( citing Helmrich ,r 34). Appellants further contend "Helmrich clearly teaches in paragraphs [0005], [0032], and [0060] that the SNR or the segmental SNR is used as a quality measure in the closed loop mode ( actually encoding and decoding a portion of the audio signal)." Reply Br. 3. Therefore, according to Appellants, "a person having ordinary skill in the art would properly interpret [the] teaching of paragraphs [ 0040], [ 0041] and [0052]-[0054] ofHelmrich, in the light of this context, and would recognize that the examples in these paragraphs are related to the closed loop mode, rather than to the open loop mode." Id. 2 The Final Office Action incorrectly listed claims 1-23 as rejected as being anticipated by Helmrich. See Final Act. 2. Claims 4 and 16 are objected to and indicated as containing allowable subject matter. See Final Act. 8. 3 Appeal 2018-000985 Application 14/812,138 We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner fmds, and we agree, that Helmrich discloses an "open-loop" mode corresponding to Appellants' claimed estimating quality measures "without actually encoding and decoding the portion of the audio signal." See Adv. Act. 2 ( citing Helmrich Fig. 1, ,r 32). The Examiner further fmds, and we agree, that Helmrich "discloses two option[ s ofJ open-loop and close-loop mode selection, and appellant interpreted in light of close-loop mode, whereas appellant's invention [is] also based on open-loop mode." Ans. 6, citing Helmrich ,r,r 64, 66, Figs. 3, 1, 7. We fmd one skilled in the art would recognize Helmrich teaches an open-loop mode, as both Figures 1 and 7 clearly display an apparatus that performs an "open-loop mode for determining the quality result" and then thereafter, "the selected encoding algorithm" is used. Helmrich ,r 34. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would understandHelmrich's SNR teachings would apply to the open loop mode, as Helmrich teaches or suggests quality results may be calculated using multiple methods, and that quality results can be based on SNR. See Helmrich ,r,r 32, 40, 59 ("the third way of calculating the quality result."). Further, Helmrich teaches a linear prediction coding ("LPC") algorithm may be in used in both an open-loop and closed loop mode. See Helmrich ,r 35. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Helmrich's teaching of"open loop portions [] clearly reads [on] the claimed limitations." Ans. 7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 13 and 23 not separately argued (see App. Br. 26), as well as claims 2, 3, 5-12, 14, 15, and 17-22not separately argued (see App. Br. 26-27). 4 Appeal 2018-000985 Application 14/812,138 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-23 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C. F. R. Â§ 1. 13 6( a)( 1 )(iv). AFFIRMED 5