Ex Parte Williams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

12205649 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/205,649 09/05/2008 Joseph M. Williams
45217 7590 05/27/2016
APPLE INC./BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
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.
04860.P6985 7273
EXAMINER
ADESANYA, OLUJIMI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH M. WILLIAMS,
RICHARD MICHAEL POWELL, and ARAM LINDAHL
Appeal2015-001140
Application 12/205,649 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-22 and 24. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim
23 has been cancelled.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. (App. Br.
3).
2 The Examiner has stated that claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form (Final Act. 30).
Appeal2015-001140
Application 12/205,649
STATEMENT OF THE fNVENTION
The claims are directed to alternatively decoding two audio streams to
create a crossfaded audio stream which fades one stream in and fades the
other stream out (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a memory buffer configured to store decoded portions of
a first stream of data and a second stream of data;
a storage structure including a plurality of executable
routines, the routines including instructions to:
alternately decode at least a first portion of a first stream
of data, a first portion of a second stream of data, and a second
portion of the first stream of data subsequent to the first portion
of the first stream of data; and
store the decoded first and second portions of the first and
second streams of data in the memory buffer, wherein the
instructions alternate between decoding the first portion of the
first stream; the first portion of the second stream; and the second
portion of the first stream such that the first portion of the
decoded first stream is combined with the first portion of the
decoded second stream to produce a simultaneous playback as a
single combined stream of the first and second portions of the
first and second streams of decoded data that can proceed without
interruption of the playback; and
a processor configured to execute the routines stored on
the storage structure.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ando
Cooke
US 6,553,436 B2
US 7,302,396 Bl
2
Apr. 22, 2003
Nov. 27, 2007
Appeal2015-001140
Application 12/205,649
Gordon
Goto
US 2008/0101421 Al May 1, 2008
US 2008/0215343 Al Sept. 4, 2008
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 16-18, 20-22, and 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goto (Final Act. 7-27).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goto and Ando (id. at 27).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goto and Gordon (id. at 27-28).
Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goto and Cooke (id. at 28-30).
ISSUE 1
Independent Claims 1, 20, and 24
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Goto teaches or suggests:
stor[ing] the decoded first and second portions of the first and
second streams of data in the memory buffer ... the first portion
of the decoded first stream is combined with the first portion of
the decoded second stream to produce a simultaneous playback
as a single combined stream of the first and second portions of
the first and second streams of decoded data,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 20 and 24?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Goto does not teach or suggest:
3
Appeal2015-001140
Application 12/205,649
stor[ing] the decoded first and second portions of the first and
second streams of data in the memory buff er ... the first portion
of the decoded first stream is combined with the first portion of
the decoded second stream to produce a simultaneous playback
as a single combined stream of the first and second portions of
the first and second streams of decoded data,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 20 and 24 (App. Br. 15-
18, 28-30; Reply Br. 10-14, 21-25). Specifically, Appellants argue Goto
teaches outputting multiple audio signals, but "[ n ]othing in Goto suggests to
one skilled in the art that the [multiple] output audio signals should be
combined in any way" (Reply Br. 11 ).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
Goto teaches decompressing two streams of audio data and storing the
decompressed streams in respective memory buffers (Final Act. 8-9 (citing
Goto i-fi-139-40, 42)). The Examiner also determines Goto teaches
"outputing the result of the decoding of the two audio streams as an audio
signal." (Ans. 33 (citing Goto i1 85) (emphasis m original); Final Act. l 0).
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine the two
streams of audio data "to provide a single combined audio stream ... to save
on memory requirements required to produce multiple audio stream outputs"
(Ans. 34, 48; see Final Act. 10-11, 23).
However, we agree with Appellants that Goto does not teach or
suggest a combined audio stream (Reply Br. 11-13 (citations omitted)).
Goto teaches separate audio streams, but does not clearly teach or suggest
combining those audio streams as proffered by the Examiner (see Goto i-fi-1 9-
10, 31, 41 (discussing the output of separate audio signals), Figs. 1-2, 5-8
(showing separate audio output signals)). While the Examiner proffers a
rationale for combining Goto' s separate audio streams - saving memory
4
Appeal2015-001140
Application 12/205,649
(Ans. 34, 48; see Final Act. 10-11, 23) - the Examiner has not established
the factual basis supporting a combined audio stream, i.e., a combined audio
stream would have been obvious in light of the teachings or suggestions in
the prior art. Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner's§ 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 20, and 24 over Goto
and claims 2-8, 21, and 22 which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1
and 20.
ISSUE 2
Independent Claims 9 and 18
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Goto teaches or suggests
switching between decoders "based at least on a differential between a
playback duration associated with the stored decoded first and second
portions of the first and second streams of data," as recited in independent
claims 9 and 18?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Goto does not teach or suggest switching between
decoders "based at least on a differential between a playback duration
associated with the stored decoded first and second portions of the first and
second streams of data," as recited in claims 9 and 18 (App. Br. 19-21;
Reply Br. 15-16). Specifically, Appellants argue switching between
decoders in Goto is not "based on the difference" between the amount of
data stored in Goto's output buffers (App. Br. 21 (emphasis omitted)).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Goto
teaches switching decoders based on buffer underflow-i.e., switching
decoders based on the change in the amount of buffer data (Ans. 39 (citing
5
Appeal2015-001140
Application 12/205,649
Goto ilil 31-35, 44--46)). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Goto
teaches "switching between decoding first and second audio streams based
on the amount of data stored in the memory buffers" (id. at 39 (citing Goto
ii 60)).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because we determine one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood Goto teaches, or at least
suggests, switching decoders based on the difference in the amount of buffer
data in both of Goto' s output buffers. Indeed, Goto teaches "compressed
audio streams to be decoded may be switched, depending on the remaining
amounts of data of the first output buffer 108 and the second output buffer
109" (Goto if 60 (emphasis added)). Moreover, the claim recites the change
in the amount of buffer data (the differential between a playback duration) is
"associated" with the first and second decoded streams, but does not limit
how the change in the amount of buffer data is associated with the streams.
We find Goto' s change in the amount buffer data is associated with both
streams because the amount of data in the buffer is the result of decoding
time provided to decode the first stream and the amount of decoding time
provided to decode the second stream (Goto iii! 31-35, 60-62).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding
Goto teaches or suggests "based at least on a differential between a playback
duration associated with the stored decoded first and second portions of the
first and second streams of data," as recited in claims 9 and 18. Dependent
claims 10, 12-17, and 19 are not separately argued by Appellants and thus,
these claims fall with their respective independent claims (see App. Br. 21,
3 1). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims
10, 12-14, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
6
Appeal2015-001140
Application 12/205,649
over Goto and dependent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goto and Gordon.
ISSUE 3
Dependent Claim 11
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding Goto teaches or suggests
"switching is also based at least in part on a performance cost that accounts
for battery life," as recited in claim 11?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Goto does not teach or suggest decoder "switching is
also based at least in part on a performance cost that accounts for battery
life," as recited in claim 11 (App. Br. 21-22). Specifically, Appellants argue
Goto teaches a "switching cycle" for decoders, but the decoder switching
cycle is not "based upon a performance cost that accounts for battery life"
(id. at 22).
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds
Goto switches cycles "so that only any one of the decoding process sections
uses the work memory to perform a decoding process at any single point of
time" (Final Act. 16-17 (citing Goto i-fi-f 10, 31-35)). The Examiner
determines that switching decoders to only use work memory at a single
point of time "suggests accounting for processing power
consumption/battery life" (Ans. 41; Final Act. 17). However, Goto does not
teach or suggest switching decoders based on performance costs accounting
for battery life; instead, Goto teaches switching decoders based on an
allocation of processing time (Goto i-fi-131-34) or the amount of buffer data
7
Appeal2015-001140
Application 12/205,649
(id. at ilil 43-50, 60-63). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 20-22 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goto is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 10, 12-14, and 16-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goto is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goto and Ando is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goto and Cooke is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goto and Gorgon is affirmed.
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) (2009).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8