Ex Parte LeBlanc

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2017

12033775 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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. 12/033,775 02/19/2008 Wilfrid LeBlanc 431573US8 6919 121419 7590 03/30/2017 Ohlnn/RrnaHonm Pnmnratinn EXAMINER 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 MOHAMMED, ASSAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2651 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2017 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): patentdocket @ oblon. com oblonpat @ oblon. com tfarrell@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILFRID LEBLANC Appeal 2014-006743 Application 12/033,775 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-006743 Application 12/033,775 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—5, 11—19, and 22—26. Claims 8 and 9 are objected to but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Claims 6, 7, 10, 20, and 21 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a packet voice system with far-end echo cancellation. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A packet voice transceiver, at a first end of a communication network, operable to send and receive voice packets to and from a second packet voice transceiver at a second end of the communication network, the packet voice transceiver comprising: a voice encoder operable to receive an outgoing audio signal and to encode the outgoing audio signal to produce an outgoing packet voice signal; a packet transmitter operable to transmit the outgoing packet voice signal over the network to the second packet voice transceiver; a packet receiver operable to receive an incoming packet voice signal over the network from the second packet voice transceiver; a voice decoder operable to decode the incoming packet voice signal to produce an incoming audio signal; and a far-end echo canceller operable to reduce echo that is present in the incoming audio signal that originated at the second end; and a non-linear processor operable to receive information regarding levels of audio activity in the outgoing audio signal and the incoming audio signal and to mute the outgoing audio 2 Appeal 2014-006743 Application 12/033,775 signal when the incoming audio signal is greater than the outgoing audio signal by at least a predetermined threshold amount, wherein the non-linear processor is operable to inform the far-end echo canceller of whether the non-linear processor is actively muting the outgoing audio signal and wherein the far- end echo canceller is operable to retrain from reducing echo in the incoming audio signal when the non-linear processor is actively muting the outgoing audio signal. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: McCaslin et al. US 5,764,753 June 9, 1998 Hemkumar et al. US 6,212,273 B1 Apr. 3, 2001 Marchok et al. US 2003/0053618 Al Mar. 20, 2003 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 11—19, and 22—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marchok, Hemkumar, and McCaslin. Final Act. 2—111. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. In connection with the rejection of independent claim 1, we agree with Appellant’s conclusions. However, in connection with the rejection of claims 13—19 and 22—26, we disagree with Appellant’s conclusions and we adopt as our own (1) the findings and 1 As noted by Appellant (App. Br. 5), the Examiner erroneously includes claims 8 and 9 among the listing of claims rejected (Final Act. 2.) Cf. Final Act. 11 (indicating claims 8 and 9 to be allowable.) 3 Appeal 2014-006743 Application 12/033,775 reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Claim 1 Appellant contends “Hemkumar does not disclose or render obvious the element of ‘wherein the non-linear processor is operable to inform the far-end echo canceller of whether the non-linear processor is actively muting the outgoing audio signal [as required by claim 1].” App. Br. 9. Appellant argues “Hemkumar mentions ‘half-duplex controllers’ to control the half duplex operation, but Hemkumar provides no details in this regard.” Id. The Examiner responds by finding Hemkumar already explicitly teaches that the echo cancellers and the duplex operations are controlled in part through the Microcontroller Control Register (MCR). Moreover, the system is able to enable and disable the echo cancellers through the use of bits in register MCRI (col. 33 lines 25—33). Specifically, Bit 4 (AuNECD) is a disable bit that allows for the echo canceller to be re-enabled or disabled. Setting the bit to 1 disables the NEC detector. This “setting” is a form of informing the echo canceller that the system has entered half-duplex operation and that muting has occurred. The echo canceller would not be able to be disabled without being “informed” of the state of operations. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to inform the far-end echo canceller of whether the non linear processor is actively muting the outgoing audio signal.” Ans. 16. Although we do not disagree with the Examiner’s logic, we are bound by the evidence of record. Based on the portions of Hemkumar cited by the Examiner, we cannot identify a teaching of informing the far-end echo 4 Appeal 2014-006743 Application 12/033,775 canceller of active muting by the non-linear processor of the [near-] end packet voice transceiver. Although the Examiner finds Hemkumar’s MCR is used to enable and disable the echo cancellers, the Examiner does not identify an explicit disclosure or explain how the half-duplex operation setting is communicated to the far-end echo canceller to inform it of active muting by the near-end non-linear processor. Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Marchok, Hemkumar, and McCaslin or the rejection of dependent claims 2—5, 11, and 12 which stand with claim 1. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant in connection with the rejection of independent claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments in connection with that rejection. Claim 13 Appellant contends Hemkumar fails to teach or suggest ‘“refraining from reducing echo in the incoming audio signal when the outgoing audio signal is being actively muted’ as recited in claim 13.” App. Br. 13. Appellant argues Hemkumar’s echo cancellers are disabled when first powered-up after which the half-duplex mode is activated so that echo cancellation is disabled prior to or at the same time the half-duplex mode is activated. Id. According to Appellant, half-duplex mode is not the same as a muting function because “[i]n half-duplex mode, an outgoing audio signal is not necessarily muted” and, instead, “unidirectional communication may occur where the outgoing audio signal is never muted.” App. Br. 13. The Examiner responds by finding Hemkumar discloses in the transmit mode state of the half-duplex mode, the transmit channel is open and the receive channel is muted and, conversely, in the receive state, the transmit channel is 5 Appeal 2014-006743 Application 12/033,775 muted. Final Act. 4—5; Hemkumar col. 11. LI. 35—38. The Examiner further finds, “during this half-duplex mode, the echo cancellers are disabled, i.e., [under a broadest reasonable interpretation] they are refrained from reducing echo.” Ans. 14, 18 (emphasis added). Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner error. Whether switching over to half-duplex initially upon being first powered or otherwise, in the half-duplex mode Hemkumar discloses muting of the inactive path, i.e., muting the receive channel when transmitting and muting the transmitting channel when receiving. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Hemkumar teaches or suggests disabling the echo cancellers when operating in the half-duplex mode. See Hemkumar col. 11,11. 14—19. Furthermore, in the absence of sufficient evidence or technical reasoning, we are not persuaded Hemkumar’s half-duplex mode fails to teach or suggest the claimed muting function. Cf. App. Br. 13 (asserting the half-duplex mode is not the same as a muting function). Mere attorney argument is “not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence). Therefore, for the reasons discussed supra, we disagree the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claim 13 and sustain the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Marchok, Hemkumar, and McCaslin together with the rejection of dependent claims 14—16, 19, 22, and 23 which are not argued separately with particularity. 6 Appeal 2014-006743 Application 12/033,775 Claim 17 The Examiner finds Marchok’s far-end echo canceller 604 teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 17 of “refraining from reducing echo in the outgoing audio signal when echo in the incoming audio signal is actively being reduced.” Final Act. 7. Appellant argues Marchok fails to provide an input to the far-end echo canceller indicating “when echo in the incoming signal is actively being reduced.” App. Br. 19. Therefore, according to Appellant, Marchok fails to teach or suggest the limitation of claim 17. Id. The Examiner responds by finding Hemkumar’s disclosure of half-duplex operations wherein echo cancellation in one channel (i.e., receive or transmit) is disabled in favor of echo cancellation in the other channel (i.e., transmit and receive, respectively) teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 15 citing Hemkumar col 11,11. 14-41. In response Appellant argues, in the half-duplex mode, if the echo cancellers (plural) are disabled as, according to Appellant, the Examiner finds is taught by Hemkumar, then there is no active echo reduction in the outgoing audio signal, contrary to the requirement of claim 17. App. Br. 19. Appellant’s argument concerning a failure of Marchok to provide an input indicative of the occurrence of active echo reduction of the incoming signal (the “event”) is premised on some underlying claim requirement for a causal relationship with the recited “action”; i.e., (i) identification of an active echo reduction event triggering (ii) the step of refraining reducing echo in the outgoing audio signal (the “refraining action”). However, claim 17 uses the word “when” to describe the relationship between the refraining action and the associated event thereby imposing only a temporal, not causal, relationship between the refraining action and active echo reduction 7 Appeal 2014-006743 Application 12/033,775 event (cf., “in response to” or “responsive to”). Thus, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 17. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Appellant’s arguments addressing Hemkumar are also unpersuasive for lack of sufficient evidence that Hemkumar is limited to enabling or disabling both transmit and receive echo cancellers in unison. The usage by the Examiner of the word “cancellers” in the plural in describing that, according to Hemkumar “during . . . half-duplex mode, the echo cancellers are disabled” (Ans. 13, emphasis added) is insufficient to persuade us that Hemkumar’s teachings are limited to either using both echo cancellers or else none, but not one or the other. Still further, we observe claim 17 does not limit the action of refraining from reducing echo in the outgoing audio signal to only when the event of active reduction of echo in the incoming audio signal is being performed. Instead the limitation only requires performance of the refraining action during at least some period in which the incoming audio signal is being actively reduced. Therefore, we note in passing and without reliance in arriving at our final decision, the disputed limitation includes and is taught by always refraining from reducing echo in the outgoing audio signal. For the reasons discussed supra, Appellant’s contentions of error in connection with the rejection of claim 17 are unpersuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of that claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marchok, Hemkumar, and McCaslin. 8 Appeal 2014-006743 Application 12/033,775 Claim 18 Appellant’s arguments in connection with the rejection of claim 18 are essentially the same as presented in connection with claim 17 and are unpersuasive for similar reasons. Accordingly, we likewise sustain the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marchok, Hemkumar, and McCaslin. Claim 24 Appellant’s arguments in connection with the rejection of claim 24 are essentially the same as presented in connection with independent claims 1 and 13 and are unpersuasive for similar reasons. Although Appellant additionally argues McCaslin fails to disclose the limitation “wherein the means for subtracting is configured to refrain from subtracting the echo estimate in response to the outgoing audio signal being actively muted” (App. Br. 17), because we agree with the Examiner in finding Hemkumar teaches or suggests this limitation (Final Act. 9, Ans. 19—20), we are not persuaded of error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marchok, Hemkumar, and McCaslin. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—5, 11, and 12. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13—19 and 22—26 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). 9 Appeal 2014-006743 Application 12/033,775 AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10