Ex Parte BRIAND et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 2019

15350934 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 15/350,934 11/14/2016 146825 7590 01/31/2019 Sage Patent Group/felefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson PO BOX 30789 RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789 Manuel BRIAND 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. 9900-33487US4TS 6570 EXAMINER TON,DAVIDL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2019 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): instructions@sagepat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MANUEL BRIAND and TOMAS JANSSON TOFTGARD Appeal2018-005793 1 Application 15/350,934 Technology Center 2600 Before ADAM J. PYO NIN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is listed as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-005793 Application 15/350,934 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Application is directed to "the field of audio encoding and/or decoding and the issue of determining the inter-channel time difference of a multi-channel audio signal." Spec. 1: 14--15. Claims 1--42 are pending, with claims 1, 15, and 29 independent. App. Br. 24--31. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (some formatting added): 1. A method for determining an inter-channel time difference of a multi-channel audio signal having at least two channels, wherein said method comprises the steps of: performing operations as follows on circuits of an electronic device: determining, at a number of consecutive time instances, an inter-channel correlation based on a cross-correlation function involving at least two different channels of the multi-channel audio signal, wherein each value of the inter-channel correlation is associated with a corresponding value of the inter-channel time difference; adaptively determining an adaptive inter-channel correlation threshold; evaluating a current value of inter-channel correlation in relation to the adaptive inter-channel correlation threshold to determine whether the corresponding current value of the inter- channel time difference is relevant; and determining an updated value of the inter-channel time difference based on the result of this evaluation to increase quality of an output of processing the multi-channel audio signal by decreasing sensitivity to at least one of noise, reverberation, and background or secondary audio sources. Claims 1--42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as being patent ineligible. Final Act. 2. 2 Appeal2018-005793 Application 15/350,934 ANALYSIS The Examiner determines the claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101, because the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Act. 3---6; Answer 6-8; see also Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,217 (2014) (Describing the two-step framework "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts."). Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error, because "the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea." App. Br. 12. Appellants contend "[ t ]he instant claims do more than gather and combine data, but moreover perform operations on circuits of an electronic device" (App. Br. 16 ( emphasis omitted)), which include "reciting a particular sequence of steps of a solution to 'determining an updated value of the inter- channel time difference based on the result of this evaluation to increase quality of an output of processing the multi-channel audio signal by decreasing sensitivity"' (App. Br. 18-19). After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this case, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application ofÂ§ 101. USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under the Guidance "Step 2A," the office first looks to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and 3 Appeal2018-005793 Application 15/350,934 (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, does the Office then (pursuant to the Guidance "Step 2B") look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Guidance. The Examiner determines claim 1 "is similar to the basic concept of manipulating information using mathematical relationships which is an abstract idea." Final Act. 3. Pursuant to the Guidance, we disagree with the Examiner. That claim 1 may use mathematical relationships is not sufficient to determine the claim "falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated" in the Guidance. Guidance, Section III(A)(l) (Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Particularly, although some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the specific mathematical concepts are not recited in the claim. Thus, claim 1 does not recite any limitations which include "mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations." Guidance, Section I ( Groupings of Abstract Ideas), 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Nor do we determine the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes. See id. Accordingly, claim 1 "does not recite a judicial exception ( a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the enumerated 4 Appeal2018-005793 Application 15/350,934 groupings of abstract ideas in Section I)," so "the claim is eligible at Prong One of revised Step 2A" unless demonstrated by the Examiner that the rare circumstance applies here "in which a USPTO employee believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea." Guidance, Section III (Instructions for Applying Revised Step 2A During Examination), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We note the Guidance provides the analysis herein "does not end the inquiry," because "[t]he claims must also satisfy the other conditions and requirements for patentability, for example, under section 102 (novelty), 103 (nonobviousness), or 112 (enablement, written description, definiteness)." Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 n.21. Such further inquiry, however, is not before us. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the pending rejections and the issues raised by Appellants. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50; see also MPEP Â§ 1213.02 ("The Board's primary role is to review the adverse decision as presented by the Examiner, and not to conduct its own separate examination of the claims."). Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, or independent claims 15 and 29, which recite similar limitations, and the claims dependent thereon. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--42 is reversed. REVERSED 5