Ex Parte Richard Jones

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2018

13965920 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/965,920 08/13/2013
27045 7590
ERICSSON INC.
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
MIS EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
07/16/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony Richard Jones
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.
P26805-US2 5501
EXAMINER
GODBOLD, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2018 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):
michelle.sanderson@ericsson.com
pam.ewing@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY RICHARD JONES
Appeal2017-002918
Application 13/965,920
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-002918
Application 13/965,920
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention generally relates to "audio coding in general,
and in particular to a method and apparatus for delivery of aligned multi-
channel audio." Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 2, which are illustrative of the
claimed invention, read as follows:
1. A method of encoding audio and including said encoded
audio into a digital transport stream, comprising:
receiving, at an encoder input, a plurality of temporally co-
located audio signals;
sampling the plurality of temporally co-located audio
signals to form a plurality of aligned frames of audio data of a
predetermined size;
assigning identical time stamps per unit time to the
plurality of aligned frames of audio data; and
incorporating, into the digital transport stream, the
plurality of aligned frames of audio data with identical time
stamps.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
compressing the plurality of aligned frames of audio data
with identical audio encoder configuration settings prior to
assigning the identical time stamps; and
allocating the plurality of aligned frames to a plurality of
mono channels of a transport stream.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Ishii
Yoo
Seo et al.
US 2001/0014853 Al
US 2006/0122823 Al
US 2008/0167880 Al
2
Aug. 16, 2001
June 8, 2006
July 10, 2008
Appeal2017-002918
Application 13/965,920
Jones US 8,538,764 B2 Sept. 17, 2013
Rejections
Claims 1-25 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22
of Jones. Final Act. 4--10.
Claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ishii and Seo. Final
Act. 10-21.
Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ishii, Seo, and Yoo. Final Act. 21-22.
ANALYSIS
Non-statutory Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
Appellant does not substantively argue the non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting rejection of claims 1-25. Instead, Appellant states
that a terminal disclaimer will be filed at a later date, if necessary. Reply
Br. 6. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-25 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting based on claims 1-22 of Jones.
§ 103 Rejections
CLAIM 1
Appellant contends the combination of Ishii and Seo fails to teach or
suggest "assigning identical time stamps per unit time to the plurality of
aligned frames of audio data; and incorporating, into the digital transport
3
Appeal2017-002918
Application 13/965,920
stream, the plurality of aligned frames of audio data with identical time
stamps," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-5.
Regarding the disputed limitations, the Examiner finds Ishii teaches
that the data to be reproduced includes decoding time stamps indicated when
frames of audio data are to be decoded. Ans. 20 ( citing Ishii ,r,r 7, 8). The
Examiner further finds "[ w ]here multiple frames of audio [data] from
different channels are to be decoded at the same time, which is possible as
shown in paragraphs 0010 and 17 [of Ishii], invariably the decoding time
stamps of frames that are to be replayed simultaneously must be the same, or
identical." Ans. 20.
Appellant acknowledges that Ishii teaches or suggests assigning
identical time stamps to the data but argues the cited references do not teach
or suggest assigning identical time stamps per unit time to a plurality of
aligned frames of audio data formed from temporarily co-located audio
signals, as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 4--5. According to Appellant,
Ishii teaches using various types of time data, including reference time data
and reproduction time data, to reproduce image and voice data in
synchronism with each other. App. Br. 7 ( citing Ishii ,r,r 7, 8, 17); Reply
Br. 2-3. Appellant argues "time data to synch up image and voice data
encoded in a bit stream is not 'assigning identical time stamps per unit time
to the plurality of aligned frames of audio data," as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant further argues Ishii' s teaching of
simultaneously decoding image and voice data of multi-channels and
reproducing the decoded image and voice data in synchronism with each
other (Ishii ,r 10) "is merely pointing to multiple TV channels with their
respective image and voice data for each TV channel" and does not teach or
4
Appeal2017-002918
Application 13/965,920
suggest assigning identical time stamps per unit time to a plurality of aligned
frames of audio data formed from a plurality of temporarily co-located audio
signals, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues
"Seo merely discusses an Inter-channel Time Difference (ICTD) ( e.g.,
paragraph [0008] of Seo), but this is discussed in relation with downmixing a
multi-channel audio signal into a monophonic or stereophonic signal" and
"ICTD identifies time differences between channels as opposed to
presenting 'the plurality of aligned frames of audio data with identical time
stamps,' as claimed." App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Ishii teaches
performing synchronous control "so as to reproduce image data and/or voice
data of channel 1 ton (n is an integer of 2 or more), compressed using the
MPEG format, in synchronism with each other." Ishii ,r 11 ( emphasis
added); see Abstract. Ishii, therefore, teaches or suggests that channels 1 to
n may include only voice data and that these multiple channels of voice data
are reproduced in synchronism with each other. As found by the Examiner
(Ans. 20), and acknowledged by Appellant (Reply Br. 4), Ishii teaches or
suggests assigning identical time stamps per unit time to a plurality of
frames of data. Because Ishii teaches that the multiple channels of data may
be audio data, Ishii, thus, teaches or suggests assigning identical time stamps
per unit time to a plurality of frames of audio data. The Examiner finds Seo
teaches "sampling the plurality of temporally co-located audio signals to
form a plurality of aligned f[ r James of audio data of a predetermined size."
Final Act. 11 ( citing Seo ,r 31 ). Thus, the Examiner relies upon the
combined teachings of Ishii and Seo for teaching or suggesting the disputed
limitations. Appellant's arguments address the teachings of each reference
5
Appeal2017-002918
Application 13/965,920
separately and do not persuasively address the combined teachings of the
references relied upon by the Examiner. As such, Appellant's arguments are
not persuasive of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not present any argument for separate patentability of
claims 3-9, 11-18, and 20-25, which fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(iv) (Pointing out "what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability").
CLAIM2
Appellant contends the combination of Ishii and Seo fails to teach or
suggest "allocating the plurality of aligned frames to a plurality of mono
channels of a transport stream," as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 9; Reply
Br. 5---6. Appellant argues the cited portions of Ishii teach "the incorporation
of time information into a bit stream to synchronize image and voice data, as
well as identify various types of time information" but fail to teach or
suggest "multiple mono channels (from a plurality of aligned frames of
audio data)," as required by claim 2. App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 5.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. As discussed above,
Ishii teaches or suggests multiple channels of audio data. The Examiner
finds Ishii teaches use of the MPEG standard and that the MPEG standard
"supports multiple mono channels in the form of stereo or surround
playback, which consists of 2-8 mono channels." Ans. 21 ( citing Ishii ,r 17).
Appellant's argument fails to persuasively address the Examiner's findings
and, therefore, is unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2.
6
Appeal2017-002918
Application 13/965,920
CLAIMS 10 AND 19
Appellant does not argue the rejection of claims 10 and 19, which we
summarily sustain.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 on the ground of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-22 of Jones.
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-25 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7