Ex Parte Borkar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 2017

12878817 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2017)

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. 12/878,817 09/09/2010 Milind Anil Borkar TI-68511 5695 23494 7590 03/09/2017 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER SECK, ABABACAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2122 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2017 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MILIND ANIL BORKAR and FERNANDO ALBERTO MUJICA Appeal 2016-003941 Application 12/878,817 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims 1—14, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Non-Final Act. 1; App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-003941 Application 12/878,817 CLAIMED INVENTION According to Appellants, their invention relates to training an adaptive filter in one domain and then implementing the filter in another domain. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An adaptive filter, comprising: a filter circuit comprising a plurality of weighted filter elements, each weighted filter element corresponding to a weighted coefficient in a target domain, the filter is adapted in an alternate domain with a plurality of constraints constraints1 by using: an adaptation engine comprising circuitry for generating weighted coefficients in a transform domain, the weighted coefficients in the transform domain selected to minimize an error signal input to the adaptation engine; and a coefficient transform circuit receiving the weighted coefficients in the transform domain and converting the weighted coefficients in the transform domain to weighted coefficients in the target domain. REFERENCES Tanrikulu Me Adam ’559 Me Adam ’055 Nagahama US 2003/0108192 A1 US 2004/0199559 A1 US 7,293,055 B2 US 2009/0055170 A1 Jun. 12, 2003 Oct. 7, 2004 Nov. 6, 2007 Feb. 26, 2009 John Shynk, Frequency-Domain and Multirate Adaptive Filtering, IEEE SP Magazine, January 1992, 11—37. Sen Kuo et al., Design of Active Noise Control Systems with the TMS320 Family, Texas Instruments Application Report, June 1996. 1 The consecutive use of the word “constraints” in claim 1 appears to be a typographical error. Claim App’x; September 11, 2013 Amendment, p. 2. If there is future prosecution, Appellants and the Examiner may want to address that apparent typographical error. 2 Appeal 2016-003941 Application 12/878,817 REJECTIONS (1) Claims 1,2, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Shynk. Non-Final Act. 3. (2) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Synch and Kuo. Non-Final Act. 5. (3) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Synch and Me Adam ’055. Non-Final Act. 6. (4) Claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Me Adam ’559 and Tanrikulu.2 Non-Final Act. 7. (5) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Me Adam ’559, Tanrikulu, and Nagahama. Non-Final Act. 11. (6) Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of McAdam ’559 and Kuo. Non- Final Act. 12. 2 The Non-Final Action (mailed 8/13/14) states that claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by McAdam ’559 in view of Tanrikulu. Non-Final Act. 7. The Examiner, however, makes this statement in the obviousness section of the Non-Final Action, and the Examiner sets forth an obviousness analysis for the rejection. Id. at 4—11. As Appellants note, and we agree, this statement by the Examiner regarding anticipation of these claims appears to be a typographical/clerical error, and we treat it as harmless error. Br. 19. 3 Appeal 2016-003941 Application 12/878,817 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, and 5 Appellants do not identify any reversible errors in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5. Br. 18. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection of those claims. Claims 3 and 4 Appellants do not specifically address the rejections of claims 3 or 4, nor do they specifically identity any claim limitation in either of those claims that they contend is not taught or suggested by the prior art. Br. 18— 24. Appellants, however, present arguments against the Examiner’s obviousness rejections in general, regarding, for example, the combination of Synch and Kuo, which we address for these claims. Id. Appellants assert that the Examiner’s combination of references would not yield predictable results because all of the cited art applies a transformation (or subband filter) to the input signal, filters the transformed signal in the transform domain, and then inverse transforms the filtered signal back to the original domain. Id. at 20—21. Appellants further assert that this process utilized by the cited prior art, prevents the use of existing hardware, such as an ASIC datapath, where applying transformations and inverse transforms in the datapath is not possible. Id. We are not persuaded by these contentions because Appellants do not present sufficient persuasive arguments or evidence to support the contentions or to tie them to the recited claim language. Id. at 20—25. In addition, the Examiner articulates how the combination of Synch and Kuo teaches a transform circuit that uses “an Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform (IDFT) matrix to convert the weighted coefficients in the transform domain 4 Appeal 2016-003941 Application 12/878,817 to weighted coefficients in the target domain,” as recited in claim 3. Ans. 18, citing Kuo 33. Appellants identify no reversible error in that explanation. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 3 and 4. Claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 Appellants do not specifically address the limitations of claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14. Br. 18—25. Instead, Appellants rely on the arguments discussed above, with respect to claim 3 and 4, and also argue that Tanrikulu, used to reject claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14, does not address the problem of adapting a filter in an alternate domain with constraints. Id. at 22—23. The Examiner, however, explains why Tanrikulu addresses that problem, and Appellants identify no reversible error in that explanation. Ans. 18. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14. Claim 7 Appellants do not specifically address the limitations of claim 7. Br. 18—25. Instead, Appellants rely on the arguments discussed above and also argue that Nagahama, which is used to reject claim 7, does not address the problem of adapting a filter in an alternate domain with constraints. Id. at 22—23. The Examiner, however, explains why Nagahama addresses that problem, and Appellants identify no reversible error in that explanation. Ans. 18, citing Nagahama 1178. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7. Claims 10 and 12 For claims 10 and 12, Appellants argue that Kuo does not teach or suggest using its IFDT to convert transform domain filter coefficients to the target domain. Br. 24—25. The Examiner, however, explains how Kuo 5 Appeal 2016-003941 Application 12/878,817 teaches using its IFDT to convert transform domain filter coefficients to the target domain, and Appellants identify no reversible error in that explanation. Ans. 18, citing Kuo 33. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 12. In addition, for all of the standing rejections, we adopt the findings and rationales set forth by the Examiner in the Answer and in the Action from which this Appeal is taken. DECISION We affirm the rejection of claims 1—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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6