Ex Parte Tsang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

12756586 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121756,586 04/08/2010
23623 7590 08/15/2016
AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP
127 Public Square
57th Floor, Key Tower
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Wai Ming Tsang
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.
IPC/P A21 l/09/09 1921
EXAMINER
MONIKANG, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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):
docketl@thepatentattorneys.com
swati@thepatentattorneys.com
hmckee@thepatentattorneys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER WAI MING TSANG 1
Appeal2015-003382
Application 12/756,586
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies City University of Hong Kong as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-003382
Application 12/756,586
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention is directed to "an architecture that can enhance
audio spatial effects." Spec. i-f 5. According to the Specification, listeners
may perceive more robust 3D audio effects "through a dynamic variation of
the sound field, and a more uniform distribution of different sound sources."
Spec. i-f 8.
Independent claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A system, comprising:
a processing device, coupled to a memory, that executes
or facilitates execution of executable components, comprising:
a receiving component configured to receive a summation
signal and an ambience signal, wherein the summation signal is
constructed as a sum of a left signal of a source stereo signal and
a right signal of the source stereo signal, and wherein the
ambience signal is constn.1cted as a difference between the left
signal and the right signal; and
an audio enhancement component configured to construct
an enhanced output signal that includes at least one left output
signal and at least one right output signal, wherein the enhanced
output signal is based upon at least one modulation with a time-
dependent function of the ambience signal.
The Examiner's References and Rejections
Claims 1-10, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Heed et al. (US 7,146,010 Bl; iss. Dec. 5, 2006)
("Heed"); Karlsson et al. (US 2010/0217585 Al; publ. Aug. 26, 2010 (PCT
filed Dec. 21, 2007) (benefit to 60/929,440, filed June 27, 2007))
2
Appeal2015-003382
Application 12/756,586
("Karlsson"); and Breebaart et al. (US 2008/0170711 Al; publ. July 17,
2008) ("Breebaart"). Final Act. 3-7.
Claims 11, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Heed, Karlsson, Breebaart, and McKee Cooper
(US 2006/0062405 Al; publ. Mar. 23, 2006) ("Cooper"). Final Act. 7-8.
Claims 12-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heed, Karlsson, Breebaart, and Gerzon (US 5,671,287;
iss. Sept. 23, 1997). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 22 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heed, Karlsson, Breebaart, Cooper, and Gerzon.
Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS 2
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 9-29; Reply Br. 2-9. We
disagree with Appellant's conclusions. We adopt as our own: (A) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-9), and (B) the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-10). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments below.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Heed, Karlsson, and Breebaart teaches or suggests an enhanced output signal
based upon "at least one modulation with a time-dependent function" of an
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
September 15, 2014); Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed January
26, 2015); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 12, 2014); and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed November 26, 2014).
3
Appeal2015-003382
Application 12/756,586
ambience signal, as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 9--20. In
particular, Appellant argues "[i]f a property of a signal or waveform is
varied in a manner that does not preserve information, then such varying of
the property is not a modulation, but instead might be a filter, an attenuation,
a phase shift or some other process." Reply Br. 8; see also App. Br. 13-14.
Appellant concludes phase-shifting Heed's side signal (S) by 180 degrees
(or multiplied by "1" or "-1 ") is not modulation with a time-dependent
function. App. Br. 14--15 (citing Heed, col. 3, 1. 66-col. 5, 1. 15 and Fig. 1).
Additionally, Appellant argues neither multiplying Heed's side signal (S) by
attenuation factor a nor filtering with Karlsson's time-varying high-pass
filter or Heed's low-order filter is a modulation with a time-dependent
function. App. Br. 12-15 (citing Heed, col. 3, 1. 66-col. 5, 1. 15; Karlsson i-f
40); see also Reply Br. 7-8.
In response, the Examiner interprets modulation "as a means to vary
the frequency, amplitude, phase[,] etc[.]," and finds phase-shifting Heed's
side signal (S) by 180 degrees teaches modulation. Ans. 10 (citing
Heed, col. 2, 11. 15-19); see also Final Act. 4 (citing Heed, col. 3, 11. 8-30).
The Examiner further finds, though Heed's side signal (S) is adjusted in the
frequency domain, "a phase shift in a frequency domain can easily be
transformed into a phase shift in the time domain, and vice versa" using the
equation time (T) = 1 I frequency (F). Ans. 10.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. When construing claim
terminology during prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. A cad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
4
Appeal2015-003382
Application 12/756,586
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, Appellant's
Specification is devoid of any limiting definition of a "modulation" or "time-
dependent function." At best, we find the Specification provides a
permissive example of at least one modulation (i.e., multiplication) with a
time-dependent function (1 + wfi(t)) of an ambience signal Bi(t):
Where Ai(t) can represent summation signal 104 and Bi(t) can
represent ambience signal 104 . . . audio enhancement
component 114 can also generate both summation signal 104 and
ambience signal 106 from source stereo signal 108.
Ci: (t ~ o:J·dt = a/Ji (t) + /J;B,, (t Xi + H-'j~ (t )] (5)
where ai, /3i, and Wi can be real numbers within the dynamic
range [O, 1 ]i, and each can either be a preset constant value, or
manually adjusted by the listener ....
Furthermore, fi(t) is a semi-periodic signal which can be
described as:
J;(r) = J;(t + T + t\T),
(12)
where T can be the fundamental period and 11T can be a random
value with a particular probability density function.
Spec. i-fi-137-38 (equations (5) and (12) (emphasis added)). Given the lack of
a relevant limiting definition in Appellant's Specification, the Examiner
broadly but reasonably construes "at least one modulation with a time-
dependent function," consistent with the Specification, to encompass phase-
shifting Heed's side-signal (S) by 180 degrees (or multiplying by "-1").
Column 3, lines 14--31 of Heed, as relied upon by the Examiner,
teaches:
According to the method, the output stereo signal Lour, which is
to be sent to a left sound reproducing unit 2' is the sum of the
side signal [(S)], and the mid signal M multiplied by a attenuating
5
Appeal2015-003382
Application 12/756,586
factor a, while the output stereo signal Rour, which is to be sent
to a right sound reproducing unit 2" is the sum of the inverted
side signal, [(S)], and the mid signal M multiplied by a
attenuating factor a. This can be expressed mathematically as
I
. Lour · = · <:r 1 · 1· At ·
Rour ct - l .. ,')·
Inverting the side signal [(S)] is equivalent to negating it
or phase shifting it 180 degrees.
Heed, col. 3, 11. 14--31. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the output
stereo signal Rour (the claimed "enhanced output signal") of Heed is based
upon a 180Q phase-shift (the claimed "at least one modulation with a time-
dependent function") of a side signal (S) (the claimed "ambience signal").
Appellant further argues substituting Heed's low order filters with
Karlsson's high pass filters counters the intended purpose of Heed, or at
least yields unpredictable results. App. Br. 16-18 (citing Heed, col. 4, 1. 66-
col. 5, 1. 15 and Karlsson i1i138, 39, 41); see also Reply Br. 3-4. In
particular, Appellant argues introducing Karlsson's time-varying parameter
to Heed's low order filters "will materially alter the frequencies respective
loudspeaker elements of Heed are intended and/or designed to receive."
App. Br. 17. Appellant further argues Heed's low order filters operate on
output signals Lout or Rout and therefore the "combination would not ever
operate on side signal S." Reply Br. 3.
We remain unpersuaded of Examiner error. It is well settled that mere
attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by
factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can such argument take the place
6
Appeal2015-003382
Application 12/756,586
of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775,
782 (CCPA 1977). Further, Appellant's arguments are not responsive to the
Examiner's rejection. In particular, as discussed supra, the Examiner finds
phase-shifting Heed's side signal (S) by 180 degrees teaches the disputed
claim limitation. See Ans. 10. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellant's argument.
Appellant further argues the time-varying high-pass filter of the
proposed combination is never applied to side signal S and therefore "[ t ]here
is no motivation to combine an element said to enhance the sound quality of
a particular signal." App. Br. 19. Appellant further argues "[t]here is no
reason for one of ordinary skill to expect that the time-varying high-pass
filter of Karlsson would be useful for any signal other than an ACELP coded
signal," and therefore "one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to
employ Karlsson's time-varying high-pass filter for Heed's side signal, S,
since no similar distortion is expected to exist in signal, S." App. Br. 19-20
(citing Karlson i-fi-138-40); see also Reply Br. 5 (citing Karlson i141).
Appellant's arguments are not responsive to the Examiner's rejection.
In particular, as discussed supra, the Examiner finds phase-shifting Heed's
side signal (S) by 180 degrees teaches the disputed claim limitation. See
Ans. 10. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument.
Appellant further argues "the combination further fails to holistically
represent the inventive concept disclosed by the appellant," directing
attention to sections of Appellant's Specification. Reply Br. 5-6
(citing Spec. i-fi-12, 7, 8, 33). We are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
Limitations not explicit or inherent in the language of a claim cannot be
imported from the specification. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343
7
Appeal2015-003382
Application 12/756,586
F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although the claims are interpreted in
light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into
the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As
discussed supra, the Examiner finds phase-shifting Heed's side signal (S) by
180 degrees teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 10.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument.
Independent claims 20 and 23 include similar recitations to claim 1
and Appellant presents essentially the same arguments for independent
claims 20 and 23. App. Br. 20-27. For the above reasons, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the combination of Heed, Karlsson,
and Breebaart teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of independent
claims 1, 20, and 23 and sustain the rejection of these independent claims.
Appellant does not argue separately with particularity dependent claims 2-
19, 21, 22, 24, and 25 (see App. Br. 28-29) and, thus, for the same reasons
as in claims 1, 20, and 23, we sustain the rejections of those dependent
claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25.
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
8