NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2020

2019001415 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/905,158 01/14/2016 Yutaka KAMAMOTO 460252US28PCT 8393
22850 7590 07/13/2020
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
KIM, JONATHAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2020 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YUTAKA KAMAMOTO, TAKEHIRO MORIYA, and
NOBORU HARADA
____________

Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JASON J. CHUNG, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 14. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the
real party in interest as Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s invention relates generally to “analysis techniques for
digital time-series signals, such as speech signals, acoustic signals,
electrocardiograms, brain waves, magnetoencephalograms, and seismic
waves.” Spec. ¶ 1. According to the Specification,
[b]y using a coefficient specified in accordance with a value that
is positively correlated with the fundamental frequency or a
value that is negatively correlated with the fundamental
frequency, as a coefficient by which an autocorrelation is
multiplied to obtain a modified autocorrelation, linear prediction
can be implemented with a higher analysis accuracy than before.
Spec. ¶ 22 (emphasis added).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A linear prediction analysis method of obtaining, in each
frame, which is a predetermined time interval, coefficients that
can be transformed to linear prediction coefficients
corresponding to an input time-series signal, the linear prediction
analysis method comprising:
a step of receiving the input time-series signal, the time-
series signal being a speech signal or an acoustic signal;
an autocorrelation calculation step of calculating an
autocorrelation RO(i) between an input time-series signal XO(n)
of a current frame and an input time-series signal XO(n-i)
i samples before the input time-series signal XO(n) or an input
time-series signal XO(n+i) i samples after the input time-series
signal XO(n), for each i of i = 0, 1, . . . , Pmax at least; and
a prediction coefficient calculation step of calculating
coefficients that can be transformed to first-order to Pmax-order
linear prediction coefficients, by using a modified
autocorrelation R’O(i) obtained by multiplying a coefficient
wO(i) by the autocorrelation RO(i) for each i,
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

3
for each i of at least one of orders i, the coefficient wO(i)
corresponding to the order i being in a monotonically increasing
relationship with an increase in a period, a quantized value of the
period, or a value that is negatively correlated with a fundamental
frequency based on the input time-series signal of the current
frame or a past frame,
the calculated coefficients that can be transformed to first-
order to Pmax-order linear prediction coefficients being used for
encoding or analyzing the speech signal or the acoustic signal.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 13–16.
The Examiner also had rejected (1) claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 14 on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1–5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,928,850 B2 (Final Act. 9–10); (2) claims 1, 4, 7,
10, and 14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1–8 of copending U.S. Patent Application
No. 15/112,534 (Final Act. 11–12); and (3) claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite (Final Act. 12–13). However, in the
Answer, the Examiner withdrew these three rejections. Ans. 3. As such, we
do not address these rejections herein.
ANALYSIS2
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s determination that claims 1, 4, 7,
10, and 14 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 12–

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered Appellant’s Appeal Brief
filed August 10, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed
December 6, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
October 18, 2018 (“Ans.”); the Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2018
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

4
17; Reply Br. 2–10. Appellant argues these pending claims as a group. See
Appeal Br. 12–17. Thus, for purposes of our analysis, we select independent
claim 1 as the representative claim, and any claim not argued separately will
stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues “the features of the claims in the present application
clearly follow the standard described in [McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)], in that the features are
specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in
conventional industry practice.” Appeal Br. 17; see id. at 12–17. In its
Reply Brief, Appellant argues (1) the “claims are not directed to an abstract
idea”; (2) the “Examiner is incorrect in asserting that a use for encoding and
analyzing a speech signal is recited in the claims”; (3) “[t]he Examiner is
incorrect to compare the claimed features to functions performed by
humans”; (4) “[t]he Examiner misapplies [RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo
Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)]”; (5) “[t]he Examiner incorrectly
asserts that decoding the signal is necessary to realize the improvement”;
and (6) “[t]he Examiner incorrectly asserts that nothing in the claim
language ties the method to a device.” Reply Br. 2–10 (emphases omitted).
In the Answer, the Examiner maintains and further clarifies the Section 101
rejection. See Ans. 3–7.
“Whether a patent claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is
an issue of law that is reviewed de novo.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

(“Final Act.”); and Appellant’s Specification filed January 14, 2016
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

5
The Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). In addition, the Office published revised
guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
specifically with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO, 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Office Guidance”). If a claim falls within one of the statutory
categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter) then the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed
to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this
inquiry, we must “look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior
art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded
subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d
1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Per Office Guidance, this first inquiry has two
prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial exception (e.g., an
abstract idea), and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a
practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Under the Office Guidance, if the
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, see infra, the
claim is patent eligible under § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. If the claim is
directed to a judicial exception (i.e., recites a judicial exception and does not
integrate the exception into a practical application), the next step is to
determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to
significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217;
84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

6
In this case, we conclude Appellant’s independent claim 1 recites an
abstract idea because it recites mathematical concepts, such as mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical
calculations. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)
(“A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our
patent laws.”) (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)); Parker v.
Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978) (“[T]he discovery of [a mathematical
formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive
concept in its application.”); Benson, 409 U.S. at 71–72 (concluding that
permitting a patent on the claimed invention “would wholly pre-empt the
mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the
algorithm itself”); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am.,
306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939) (“[A] scientific truth, or the mathematical expression
of it, is not patentable invention[.]”). Importantly, a mathematical concept
need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because “[w]ords used in a
claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a
formula.” In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see, e.g.,
SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(holding that claims to “a series of mathematical calculations based on
selected information” are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs.,
LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through
mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea); Bancorp Servs.,
LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable value protected
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

7
life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the
results” as an abstract idea).
More specifically, Appellant’s claims are generally directed to
calculating coefficients that can be transformed to linear prediction
coefficients, or as more concisely characterized by the Examiner, “predictive
coefficient calculation” (Final Act. 13 (emphasis omitted)). This is
consistent with how Appellant describes the claimed invention. See Spec.
¶¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to analysis techniques for digital time-
series signals.” (emphasis added)), 16 (“An object of the present invention is
to provide a linear prediction analysis method.” (emphasis added)). Indeed,
Appellant argues repeatedly that the invention is calculating coefficients that
can be transformed to linear prediction coefficients with better precision.
See, e.g., Appeal Br. 15–16 (“The inventors have conducted a close study of
technique for determining a coefficient which can be converted into linear
predictive coefficients . . . with higher precision than ever.” (emphases
added)), 16 (“improved process of obtaining the linear predictive
coefficients”); Reply Br. 4 (“The inventors of the present application
performed detailed technical examination on the technique for calculating
coefficients that can be transformed to linear prediction coefficients and
found out that a value of an autocorrelation RO(i) is more affected by a
period as the period is shorter, as a concrete idea for realizing technical
improvement.” (emphases added)), 5 (“[T]he inventors made it possible to
obtain coefficients that can be transformed to linear prediction coefficients
more accurately than related art.”), 6 (“[T]he claimed inventions of the
application concerned are explicitly for calculating coefficients that can be
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

8
transformed to linear prediction coefficients more accurately than related
art.” (emphasis added)).
Consistent with our Office Guidance and case law (see supra), we
conclude that calculating coefficients that can be transformed to linear
prediction coefficients is a mathematical concept, involving mathematical
calculations, mathematical relationships, or mathematical formulas or
equations, and, thus, an abstract idea. See Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52. Claim 1 is reproduced below and includes the following claim
limitations that recite calculating coefficients that can be transformed to
linear prediction coefficients, emphasized in italics:
1. A linear prediction analysis method of obtaining, in each
frame, which is a predetermined time interval, coefficients that
can be transformed to linear prediction coefficients
corresponding to an input time-series signal, the linear prediction
analysis method comprising:
a step of receiving the input time-series signal, the time-
series signal being a speech signal or an acoustic signal;
an autocorrelation calculation step of calculating an
autocorrelation RO(i) between an input time-series signal XO(n)
of a current frame and an input time-series signal XO(n-i)
i samples before the input time-series signal XO(n) or an input
time-series signal XO(n+i) i samples after the input time-series
signal XO(n), for each i of i = 0, 1, . . . , Pmax at least; and
a prediction coefficient calculation step of calculating
coefficients that can be transformed to first-order to Pmax-order
linear prediction coefficients, by using a modified
autocorrelation R’O(i) obtained by multiplying a coefficient wO(i)
by the autocorrelation RO(i) for each i,
for each i of at least one of orders i, the coefficient wO(i)
corresponding to the order i being in a monotonically increasing
relationship with an increase in a period, a quantized value of
the period, or a value that is negatively correlated with a
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

9
fundamental frequency based on the input time-series signal of
the current frame or a past frame,
the calculated coefficients that can be transformed to first-
order to Pmax-order linear prediction coefficients being used for
encoding or analyzing the speech signal or the acoustic signal.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
Because the claim recites a judicial exception, we next determine
whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify
whether there are “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the
judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether they
integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application.
Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added); see also MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
In this case, we find the additional limitations do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. More particularly, contrary to
Appellant’s assertions (see Appeal Br. 12–17; Reply Br. 2–10), the claims
do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other
technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular
machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
(iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state
(see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation
(see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Specifically, the additional limitations in independent claim 1 merely
“receiv[e]” data (i.e., “a step of receiving the input time-series signal, the
time-series signal being a speech signal or an acoustic signal”), and “use[]”
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

10
the “calculated coefficients” in an identified field (i.e., “the calculated
coefficients . . . being used for encoding or analyzing the speech signal or
the acoustic signal” (emphasis added)). Appeal Br. 18 (Claim 1). These
steps are extra-solution activity of data gathering and providing data for
further use, which do not confer patent eligibility. See, e.g., Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1355 (explaining that “selecting information, by content or
source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to
differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes”); Bancorp Servs.,
L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo.
2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that “storing,
retrieving, and providing data . . . are inconsequential data gathering and
insignificant post solution activity” (citation omitted)). Further, the
additional limitation of “the calculated coefficients . . . being used for
encoding or analyzing the speech signal or the acoustic signal” does no more
than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological
environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Indeed, Appellant argues that while
the claimed invention involves calculating coefficients, it does not encode or
analyze signals. See Reply Br. 6 (arguing “the claimed inventions of the
application concerned are explicitly for calculating coefficients . . . and thus,
the claims themselves do not include the steps of encoding or analyzing after
the linear prediction analysis” (emphases added)).
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 12–17),
independent claim 1 does not recite an improvement to the functionality of a
computer or other technology or technical field, and we find Appellant’s
reliance on McRO unavailing. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). In McRO, the
Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

11
facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent
eligible under Section 101, because they were not directed to an abstract
idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316. The basis for the McRO court’s decision
was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation
and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract
ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the
claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that
previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313. The McRO court
indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in
computer animation that “improved [the] existing technological process,”
unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to
perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314. The McRO court also noted
that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set
morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of
producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in
animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or
outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313.
Unlike in McRO, we find claim 1 in this case merely claims the idea of a
solution or outcome, namely ‘better’ mathematical calculations that provide
‘better’ mathematical results (i.e., calculating coefficients that can be
transformed to linear prediction coefficients more accurately), and generally
links use of that ‘better’ math to the technological environment of linear
prediction analysis of speech or acoustic signals.
For at least the foregoing reasons, independent claim 1 does not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

12
Because we determine the invention of independent claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea or combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the
claim under step two of Alice (i.e., step 2B of the Office Guidance) to
determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an
ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to “significantly more” than
the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–
73, 77–79). As stated in the Office Guidance, many of the considerations to
determine whether the claims amount to “significantly more” under step two
of the Alice framework are already considered as part of determining
whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a practical
application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of our analysis, we
determine if the claims add a specific limitation, or combination of
limitations, that is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the
field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a
high level of generality. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. “Whether something is well-
understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the
patent is a factual determination.” Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
In this case, Appellant’s claim 1 does not recite additional specific
limitations (alone or when considered as an ordered combination) that are
not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Instead, when describing its
method for calculating coefficients that can be transformed to linear
prediction coefficients, but for the involved ‘better’ mathematical
calculations, Appellant describes the involved system and components at a
high level of generality and that the method may be performed by
“conventional” linear prediction analysis device components. See
Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

13
Spec. ¶¶ 25 (“The operation of the autocorrelation calculation unit 21, the
coefficient multiplication unit 22, and the prediction coefficient calculation
unit 23 is the same as the operation of the autocorrelation calculation
unit 11, the coefficient multiplication unit 12, and the prediction coefficient
calculation unit 13, respectively, in the conventional linear prediction
analysis device 1.”), 151 (using “a conventional linear prediction analysis
device”), 155 (“There are a variety of known methods of obtaining the
fundamental frequency, and any of those known methods can be used.”);
compare Spec., Fig. 15 (“conventional”), with Spec., Fig. 1 (showing system
at a high level of generality). Furthermore, we find no additional limitations
in independent claim 1 that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract
idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Further, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
of claims 4, 7, 10, and 14, which were not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2019-001415
Application 14/905,158

14
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 7, 10, 14 101 Eligibility 1, 4, 7, 10, 14

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED