Ex Parte Walther

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2018

13911791 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/911,791 06/06/2013 Andreas WALTHER
22862 7590 06/26/2018
GLENN PATENT GROUP
c/o Perkins Coie LLP
P.O. Box 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247
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.
110971-8698.USOl 4976
EXAMINER
MOHAMMED, ASSAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2018 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 STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS WALTHER 1
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Fraunhofer-
Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-10 and 12-15. Claim 11 is indicated to be allowable. Final Act. 4. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to decomposing an input signal using a
downmixer. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for decomposing an input signal comprising a
number of at least three input channels, comprising:
a downmixer for downmixing the input signal to acquire a
downmix signal, wherein the downmixer is configured for
downmixing so that a number of downmix channels of the
downmix signal is at least 2 and smaller than the number of input
channels;
an analyzer for analyzing the downmix signal to derive an
analysis result; and
a signal processor for processing the input signal or a
signal derived from the input signal using the analysis result,
wherein the signal processor is configured for applying the
analysis result to the input channels of the input signal or
channels of the signal derived from the input signal to acquire
the decomposed signal, wherein the signal derived from the input
signal is different from the downmix signal.
2 We refer to Appellant's Specification filed June 6, 2013 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action mailed Sept. 28, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appellant's
Appeal Brief filed Mar. 27, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer
mailed July 26, 2017 ("Ans."); and Appellant's Reply Brief filed Sept. 26,
2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Herre et al. (hereinafter "Herre")
Davis
Kim
Kumiawati et al.
(hereinafter "Kumia wati ")
Thompson et al.
(hereinafter "Thompson")
Faller
Den Brinker et al.
(hereinafter "Den Brinker")
US 2006/0004583 Al
US 2007/0140499 Al
US 2007/0154019 Al
US 2007 /0255562 Al
US 2007/0297519 Al
US 2010/0061558 Al
WO 2011/058484 Al
REJECTIONS 3
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Jan. 5, 2006
June 21, 2007
July 5, 2007
Nov. 1, 2007
Dec. 27, 2007
Mar. 11, 2010
May 19, 2011
Claims 1, 14, and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Thompson. Final Act. 5-10.
Claims 2, 3, and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Thompson and Herre. Final Act. 10-14.
3 Appellant argues the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). App.
Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-7. Appellant presents claim 1 as representative. App.
Br. 5. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2-13.
Furthermore, although Appellant raises arguments for claim 13 on pages 7-9
of the Reply Brief, these belated arguments are waived and will not be
considered as they were not raised in the principal brief, are not responsive
to argument raised in the Examiner's Answer, and are not based on a
showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2) (2016). Therefore, we
decide the rejections based on arguments presented in connection with
representative claim 1 alone.
3
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thompson, Herre, and Den Brinker. Final Act. 14--
16.
Claim 5 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thompson, Herre, and Kim. Final Act. 16.
Claim 6 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thompson, Herre, and Faller. Final Act. 17.
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thompson, Herre, and Kumiawati. Final Act. 18-
20.
Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thompson, Herre, and Davis. Final Act. 21.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-21)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 19-22). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Claim l's "decomposed signal"
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Thompson's system, shown
in Figure 1, teaches an apparatus for decomposing an input signal. Final
Act. 5; Ans. 21. The Examiner also finds Thompson's processing performed
4
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
by the sub-band correction system teaches the processing "to acquire the
decomposed signal," as required by claim 1. Ans. 21 (citing Thompson Fig.
1; iTiT 29-30 and 62).
Appellant contends the Examiner's interpretation of the term
"decomposition" is overly broad. App. Br. 14--15. To support this
contention, Appellant asserts that many prior art references cited in
Appellant's Specification provide an overview of the term decomposition.
App. Br. 15. Appellant also asserts any interpretation of "decomposition"
must be in light of Appellant's Specification disclosing "[t]he present
invention relates to audio processing and, in particular to audio signal
decomposition into different components such as perceptually distinct
components." App. Br. 14 (quoting Spec. p. 1, 11. 16-17). Appellant
concludes Thompson's sub-band correction does not describe decomposition
into different components. App. Br. 14. Appellant further contends
Thompson's sub-band correction system does not provide any decomposed
signal because Thompson's Figure 5 shows the corrected downmix signal as
consisting of only two channels. Reply Br. 6.
Appellant provides insufficient evidence the Examiner's interpretation
of a decomposed signal is overly broad. During examination, claims are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004). "Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not
unfair to the applicant ... because the applicant has the opportunity to
amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage." Id. Although
Appellant discloses an example of a decomposed signal including more
separated channels than the number of downmix channels, claim 1 is not so
5
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
limited, and we decline to import limitations from the Specification into the
claims. "[L ]limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing Jn re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321(Fed. Cir. 1989)).
For example, claim 1 specifies an input signal which comprises at
least three input channels is downmixed to provide a downmix signal having
fewer number of channels. No such relationship between the number of
channels is recited in connection with the disputed "signal derived from the
input signal," only that the derived signal be "different from the downmix
signal." Therefore, we agree with the Examiner Thompson's sub-band
correction system including two output channels (Thompson Fig. 5: LW(T),
RW(T)) teaches or suggests the disputed decomposed signal.
In addition, Thompson further discloses converting a 5 .1 4 channel
input to 2-channel stereo and then back to 5.1 channel or other suitable
number of channels. Thompson i-fi-130, 62. For example, Thompson
discloses the resultant stereo signal can be upmixed to a 7 .1 channel signal.
Thompson i-fi-130, 40, 62. Thompson's teaching of converting 5.1 to 2-
channel stereo and then to 7 .1 is consistent with Appellant's acquiring of the
decomposed signal because Appellant's Specification similarly explains
decomposing 5.1 channel sound to stereo sound to 7 .1 channel sound. Spec.
p. 7, 11. 2-8. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Thompson teaches
4 A "5 .1 channel surround signal [has] a left channel, a center channel, a
right channel, a left surround channel, a right surround channel and a low-
frequency enhancement (subwoofer) [(LFE) channel]." Spec. p. 4, 11. 10-12.
A 7 .1 surround system splits the surround information into four distinct
channels, left and right side surround channels plus two rear surround
channels. See Thompson i1 66 ("7 .1 sound systems [have] two front, two
side, two rear, and one front center speaker .... ")
6
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
the processing to acquire the decomposed signal because Thompson
similarly discloses decomposing a 5.1 channel sound to stereo and then to
7 .1 channel sound.
Claim l's "applying the analysis result"
The Examiner finds Thompson's sub-band correction system
(Thompson Fig. 1: 110) applies the upmix sub-band vector calculator's data
(Thompson Fig. 1: UPMIX ENERGY I POSITION DATA) to the source
sub-band vector calculator's data (Thompson Fig. 1: SOURCE ENERGY I
POSITION DATA) teaches or suggests "the signal processor ... applying
the analysis result to ... channels of the signal derived from the input
signal" as required by claim 1. Final Act. 6; Ans. 20, 21. The Examiner
explains Thompson's sub-band correction system processes the analysis
result, the derived signal, and the downmix signal. Final Act. 3, 6; Ans. 20.
Appellant contends Thompson's sub-band vector calculator signals are not
applied to a signal different from the downmix signal because Thompson's
sub-band calculator signals are applied to the downmix signal. App. Br. 8.
Appellant's contention is unpersuasive. Thompson's sub-band
correction system (Thompson Fig. 1: 110) receives information from the
upmix sub-band vector calculator (Thompson Fig. 1: 106, which sends
upmix energy and position data) and the source sub-band vector calculator
(Thompson Fig. 1: 108, which sends source energy and position data).
Thompson's sub-band correction system's spectral correction system applies
the upmix energy data (Thompson Fig. 5: T uMrx(F)) to the source energy
data (Thompson Fig. 5: TsouRcE(F)) because the source energy data is
divided by upmix energy data. Similarly, the sub-band correction system
7
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
applies the upmix position data (Thompson Fig. 5: Px,uMrx(F), PY,uMrx(F)) to
the source position data (Thompson Fig. 5: Px,souRcE(F), PY,souRcE(F)) in the
various quotients formed by the position correction system of the sub-band
correction system. That is, the Px,uMrx(F) is applied to Px,souRcE(F) to
provide the quotient of the two. Similarly, PY,uMrx(F) is applied to
PY,souRcE(F) by the subtraction of PY,uMrx(F) from PY,souRcE(F). Therefore,
under a broad but reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that
Thompson teaches or suggests the analysis result (Thompson Fig. 1: UPMIX
ENERGY I POSITION DATA; see also Thompson Fig. 5: TuMrx(F)),
Px,uMrx(F), PY,uMrx(F)) is applied to the derived signal (Thompson Fig. 5:
T souRcE(F), Px,souRcE(F), PY,souRcE(F)) as shown in the calculations and
required by claim 1.
Claim 1 's "analyzing the downmix signal"
The Examiner finds the combination of Thompson's reference upmix
(Thompson Fig. 1: 104) and upmix sub-band vector calculator (Thompson
Fig. 1: 106) teaches or suggests the claimed "analyzer" of the downmix
signal (Thompson Fig. 1: LW'(T), RW'(T)). Final Act. 3, 6 (citing
Thompson i-f 30); Ans. 20. The Examiner finds Thompson's output from the
upmix sub-band vector calculator is a result of analysis performed by both
the reference upmix and the upmix sub-band vector calculator. Ans. 20.
Appellant contends that, because Thompson's reference upmix irreversibly
upmixes the downmix signal, the downmix signal would no longer exist to
be analyzed by the upmix sub-band vector calculator. App. Br. 12.
Appellant's contention is unpersuasive. As discussed above, claims
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
8
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
specification, without importing limitations from the specification into the
claims. See Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364; Van Geuns, 988
F.2d at 1184; See also In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
1998) ("[T]he name of the game is the claim."). The disputed limitation
recites "an analyzer for analyzing the downmix signal to derive an analysis
result." The claim does not preclude the downmix signal from being
analyzed through intermediary steps to arrive at an analysis result.
Thompson shows the downmix signal (Thompson Fig. 1: LW'(T),
RW' (T)) as input to the reference upmix (Thompson Fig. 1: 104) which
processes the downmix signal to output an intermediate state (Thompson
Fig. 1: L'(T), R'(T), C'(T), LS'(T), RS'(T)). The intermediate state is further
processed in the upmix sub-band vector calculator (Thompson Fig. 1: 106)
to output an analysis result (Thompson Fig. 1: UPMIX ENERGY I
POSITION DATA). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Thompson's upmix energy and position data is "an analysis result" derived
from Thompson's downmix signal by way intermediate analysis performed
by the combination of Thompson's reference upmix and upmix sub-band
calculator, thereby teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation.
Claim l's "the [derived signal] is different from the downmix signal"
Appellant contends Thompson's sub-band correction system does not
apply sub-band vector calculator signals to a signal different from the
downmix signal because, according to Appellant, Thompson's sub-band
calculators' signals (Thompson Fig. 1: SOURCE ENERGY/POSITION
DATA and UPMIX ENERGY /POSITION DATA) are applied to the
downmix signal (Thompson Fig. 1: LW'(T), RW'(T)). App. Br. 8. The
9
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
Examiner finds that Thompson's source energy and position data (Fig. 1:
SOURCE ENERGY /POSITION DATA) are equivalent to the claimed
derived signal, which is different from the downmix signal (Thompson
Fig. 1: LW'(T), RW"(T)). Final Act. 3, 6; Ans. 21. We agree with the
Examiner that Thompson's source energy and position data are different
from the downmixed stereo signal and, accordingly, Thompson teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation.
Claim l's "channels of the [derived signal]"
The Examiner finds Thompson's sub-band correction system
processing information output from both sub-band vector calculators
(Thompson Fig. 1: 106, 108) teaches or suggests "the signal processor ...
applying the analysis result to ... channels of the signal derived from the
input signal" required by claim 1. Final Act. 6. Specifically, the Examiner
finds Thompson's source sub-band vector calculator (Thompson Fig. 1: 108)
is equivalent to the claimed "channels of the signal derived from the input
signal." Final Act. 6. Appellant argues, for the first time in the Reply Brief,
Thompson's output from the source sub-band vector calculator does not
have channels, and therefore, does not teach or suggest channels to which an
analysis result can be applied as claimed. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant's contention is unpersuasive. As an initial matter,
Appellant's belated arguments are waived as untimely. "Any argument
raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not
responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any
designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for
10
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown." 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41 (b )(2) (2016).
Furthermore, even if timely presented, Appellant's arguments are not
persuasive of reversible Examiner error. During prosecution, claims must be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading claim language
in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. Technical
treatises and dictionaries are worthy of special note. 5 Judges may rely on
dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary
definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a
reading of the patent documents. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996). "Channel" means: "1. [a] path or
link through which information passes between two devices. A channel can
be either internal or external to a microcomputer. 2. In communications, a
medium for transferring information." MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY
117 (5th ed. 2002).
Thompson shows a path from the source sub-band vector calculator
(Thompson Fig. 1: 108) to the sub-band correction system (e.g., Thompson
Fig. 1: 110) for transmitting source energy and position data, which, under a
broad but reasonable interpretation, teaches or suggests the disputed
channels. In further support of the Examiner, Thompson's Figure 4 is the
diagram for the sub-band vector calculator. The sub-band vector calculator,
shown in Figure 4, outputs two distinct frequency domain signals designated
5 See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.30 (2016) (permitting dictionaries to be cited
before the Board and excluding dictionaries from the definition of
"evidence.").
11
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
T(F) and P(F), corresponding to energy data and position data, respectively.
For both reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Thompson teaches or
suggests "channels of the signal derived from the input signal," because
Thompson's source energy and position data from the source sub-band
vector calculator to the sub-band correction system are data channels.
Motivation
Also for the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that the
Examiner did not provide motivation to modify anything because "it would
not make any sense to apply the upmix energy/position data to the source
energy/position data .... " Reply Br. 6-7. This argument was not presented
in the principal brief and is deemed waived. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2) (2016).
Furthermore, we disagree with the substance of Appellant's contention. In
particular, contrary to Appellant's contention "that it would not make any
sense" for Thompson's upmix energy and position data to be applied to the
source energy and position data (Reply Br. 7), Thompson's sub-band
correction unit (Thompson Fig. 1: 11 O; see Fig. 5) does exactly that: it
applies the upmix energy (Thompson Fig. 5: TsouRcE(F)) to the source
energy (Thompson Fig. 5: T uMrx(F)) because, as explained above, the source
energy is divided by the upmix energy. Likewise, Thompson's sub-band
correction unit (Thompson Fig. 1: 11 O; see Fig. 5) applies the upmix
position data to the source position data (Thompson Fig. 5 shows performing
calculations where Px,uMrx(F) and PY,uMrx(F) are applied to Px,souRcE(F) and
PY,souRcE(F)). While the Examiner rejected claim 1 as obvious over
Thompson, the Examiner did not suggest modifying Thompson's teachings.
Obviousness rejections require articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
12
Appeal2017-011820
Application 13/911,791
(quoting Jn re Kahn, 441F.3d997, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, the reason
for applying the upmix energy and position data to the source energy and
position date is that Thompson discloses applying the upmix energy and
position data to the source energy and position data.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejections of independent claims
1, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Thompson. We further sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 2-10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
because these dependent claims were not separately argued in the Appeal
Brief.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 and 12-15
under pre-AIA 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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
13