Ex Parte Lederman et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

13837205 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/837,205 03/15/2013
23409 7590 05/02/2019
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke)
100 E WISCONSIN A VENUE
Suite 3300
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jonathan L. Lederman
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.
209058-9001 usoo 1044
EXAMINER
RECEK, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN L. LEDERMAN and
LA WREN CE MARK GUTERMAN
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 12, 25, and 27. 2 We have jurisdiction over the
pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Sonitum Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
SonicCloud, Inc. is identified as the Applicant. (Bib Data Sheet.)
2 Claims 1--4, 10, 12-21, and 23-29 were pending and rejected when the
Final Office Action was issued. See Final Act. 1. An after-final amendment
was accepted by the Examiner in which claims 2--4, 10, 13-21, 23, 24, 26,
28, and 29 were canceled, and in which (a) claim 1 includes features of
claims 3 and 4, (b) claim 12 includes features of claims 13 and 15, (c) claim
25 includes features of claims 19 and 24, and ( d) claim 27 includes features
of claim 29. See Response to August 7, 2017 Office Action 6; Ans. 4.
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to transparent
and automatic establishment of a personalized communication session across
heterogeneous networks utilizing a network node for providing
personalization services. (Abstract.)
Independent claims 1, 12, 25, and 27, reproduced below, comprise the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for providing a personalized communication
session between a caller and a callee, the method comprising:
(a) automatically establishing a first leg between the
caller and a network node by routing a call from the caller to
the network node;
(b) at the network node:
(i) determining session information associated with
the call;
(ii) generating at least one audio personalization
parameter for the call based upon the session information by:
generating at least one query from the
session information by transforming the session information
into a structured data representation, wherein the structured data
representation provides a mapping from a session information
value to a database field; and
submitting the at least one query to a
database, wherein the database returns the at least one
personalization parameter based upon the query;
(iii) configuring an audio processor using the at
least one audio personalization parameter;
(iv) establishing a second leg between the network
node and the callee; and
(v) bridging the first leg and the second leg such
that an audio signal associated with the call is routed through
the audio processor.
2
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
12. A method for providing a personalized communication
session between a caller and a callee, the method comprising:
(a) receiving a first call from the caller;
(b) determining session information associated with the
first call;
( c) determining at least one audio personalization
parameter for the first call based upon the session information,
wherein the at least one audio personalization parameter is
based upon a frequency response characteristic associated with
one selected from the group consisting of the caller and the
callee;
( d) configuring an audio processor using the at least one
audio personalization parameter;
( e) establishing a second call with the callee; and
( f) bridging the first call and the second call such that an
audio signal associated with the call is routed through the audio
processor,
wherein the at least one audio personalization parameter
comprises an identifier of a topological layout of a signal
processing algorithm, and
wherein the topological layout comprises a first channel
and a second channel and a first portion of the at least one audio
personalization parameter is used to configure the first channel
and a second portion of the at least one audio personalization
parameter is used to configure the second channel.
25. A system for providing a personalized communication
session between a caller and a callee, the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to
(a) receive a call,
(b) determine session information associated with
a first call, the session information including both in-band
session information and out-of band session information,
3
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
( c) determine at least one audio personalization
parameter for the first call based upon the session information,
wherein the at least one audio personalization parameter is
based upon a frequency response characteristic associated with
one from the group consisting of the caller and the callee,
( d) establish a second call with the callee; and
( e) generate the at least one audio personalization
parameter from the frequency response characteristic, including
personalized wide dynamic range compression in order to
optimize hearing of one from the group consisting of the caller
and the callee;
( f) optimize the at least one personalization
parameter using a non-linear optimization algorithm, and
a programmable audio processor that receives the at least
one audio personalization parameter and alters its configuration
based at least in part on the at least one audio personalization
parameter,
wherein the at least one processor bridges the first call
and the second call such that an audio signal associated with the
call is routed through the programmable audio processor.
27. A method for providing a personalized communication
session between a caller and a callee, the method comprising:
(a) receiving a call;
(b) determining session information associated with the
call;
( c) determining at least two audio personalization
parameters for the call based upon the session information,
wherein a first audio personalization parameter is based upon a
hearing profile of one selected from the group consisting of the
caller and the callee, and a second audio personalization
parameter is based upon a respective voice characteristic of
another selected from the group consisting of the caller and the
callee;
4
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
( d) configuring an audio processor using the first audio
personalization parameter based upon the hearing profile and
the second audio personalization parameter based upon the
respective voice characteristic; and
( e) audio processing the call with the audio processor to
obtain a personalized audio,
wherein the session information includes both in-band
session information and out-of band session information, and
wherein the out-of band session information is transmitted over
an out-of-band communication channel distinct from a
communication channel associated with the in-band session
information.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Michaelis et al. (US 9,031,836 B2, iss. May 12, 2015)
(hereinafter "Michaelis") and Serban et al. (US 2013/0198237 Al, pub. Aug.
1, 2013) (hereinafter "Serban"). (Ans. 3.)
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Michaelis, Nayak et al. (US 2014/0180458 Al, pub. June
26, 2014) (hereinafter "Nayak"), and Luo (US 2002/0041695 Al, pub. Apr.
11, 2002). (Ans. 3.)
The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Michaelis, Reynolds et al. (US 2008/0137644 Al, pub.
June 12, 2008) (hereinafter "Reynolds"), and LoPresti et al.
(US 2010/0202642 Al, pub. Aug. 12, 2010) (hereinafter "LoPresti"). (Ans.
3.)
The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Michaelis and Reynolds. (Ans. 3.)
5
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues 3:
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Michaelis and Serban teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. (App.
Br. 10-12.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Michaelis, Nayak, and Luo teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 12.
(App. Br. 12-14.)
Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Michaelis, Reynolds, and LoPresti teaches or suggests the limitations of
claim 25. (App. Br. 14--15.)
Issue Four: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Michaelis and Reynolds teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 27.
(App. Br. 15-16.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. Except where indicated, we disagree
with Appellants' arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-14) and (2) the corresponding findings and
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 5, 2018); the Reply Brief
(filed July 3, 2018); the Final Office Action (mailed Aug. 7, 2017); the
Advisory Action (mailed Dec. 18, 2017); and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed May 3, 2018) for the respective details.
6
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2-8.) We emphasize the following.
First Issue
In finding the combination of Michaelis and Serban teaches or
suggests the limitations of claim 1, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of
Michaelis of administering an intelligibility test to a user that evaluates the
user's ability to discriminate between sounds, and then applying adjustments
to audio signals determined best suited for different conditions, devices, or
systems. (Final Act. 5---6 (regarding claim 1), 11-12 (regarding former claim
4); Michaelis 1:58---62, 2: 1-10, 2: 17-20, 2:30-54, 3:20-30, 4:20-30, 5:2-12,
Figs. 2, 3.)
The Examiner further relies on the disclosure of Serban of a processor
receiving a function call formatted to interact with a relational database
including a mapping application acting as a bridge to a hierarchical data
structure. (Final Act. 11-12 (regarding former claim 4); Serban Abstract,
,I 16, Fig. 3.)
Appellants argue that Serban is non-analogous art because
Serban does not disclose retrieving audio profiles or audio
parameters from a memory at all, much less audio
personalization. The term "audio" is not present in Serban.
Serban does not include a caller, a callee, or a network node
separate from the caller and the callee, much less "generating at
least one audio personalization parameter for the call based
upon session information" as recited in claim 1.
(Reply Br. 2.) Appellants contend that there is no motivation to modify
Michaelis with Serban, because "Michaelis already has a system with data
storage," and further that "Serban is applied in hindsight." (App. Br. 12.)
7
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds that
Serban is analogous art because it is at least reasonably
pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor. Retrieving audio
profiles/parameters that have been stored in memory is a
problem related to the claimed invention. Serban provides a
solution to the problem of how to interact with a database.
(Ans. 4.) While Michaelis does teach data storage (see, for example,
Michaelis 4:5-29), Michaelis indicates no use of, or need for, databases for
any purpose. The portions of Serban identified by the Examiner do not
suggest the integration of databases into systems lacking such technology.
Thus, the Examiner's finding that "Serban provides a solution to the
problem of how to interact with a database," absent some corresponding
teaching, represents impermissible hindsight. (Ans. 4.)
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Second Issue
In finding the combination of Michaelis, N ayak, and Luo teaches or
suggests the limitations of claim 12, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of
Na yak of reducing a processor clock rate to reduce power usage in cases
where the worst case topology configuration is not used, in which a topology
may refer to a combination of or sequence of audio processing algorithms.
(Final Act. 8-9 (regarding former claims 13 and 15); Nayak ,r,r 35, 41, 60.)
The Examiner further relies on the disclosure of Luo of the benefits of
spatial processing using beam-forming techniques and binaural listening, in
which spatial filtering is performed individually for a ( 1) right channel
corresponding to a user's right ear, and (2) left channel corresponding to the
8
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
user's left ear. (Final Act. 9 (regarding former claim 15); Luo ,r,r 3, 23, Fig.
2.)
Appellants argue "Nayak does not disclose or suggest bridging a first
call and a second call with an audio processor" and "Luo is directed to a
system having multiple microphones for a hearing aid having a right ear
sound emitting device and a left ear sound emitting device." (App. Br. 13.)
that
We do not agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
Nayak was not relied upon to teach [bridging a first call and a
second call with an audio processor]. Michaelis clearly
discloses the "structure" of the claims whereby a call is routed
to a recipient via a server which includes an audio processor to
modify the call. Applicant is essentially arguing the references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references.
(Ans. 5.) The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that "Luo teaches[]
configuring a first and second channel" (Ans. 6, citing Luo ,r 23) and
"binaural listening improves speech intelligibility." (Ans. 6, citing Luo ,r 3.)
Appellants submit a new argument in the Reply regarding the
effective filing date of paragraphs 5 and 6 of Nayak, but supply no good
cause why this argument was not made earlier. See Reply Br. 3.
Accordingly, this argument in the Reply will not be considered. See 37 CPR
§ 41.41 (b )(2).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
Third Issue
In finding the combination of Michaelis, Reynolds, and LoPresti
teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 25, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure of Reynolds of a session initiator establishing parallel data
9
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
transfer sessions in which the first session operates a VoIP communication
session, and the second session is implemented using a SIP ( session
initiation protocol) message containing SDP (session description protocol)
information. Additionally, an in-band signal is transported within the VoIP
communication session, and an out-of-band signal in another session. (Final
Act. 9-10 (regarding former claim 19); Reynolds Figs. 3---6, ,r,r 40, 44--49,
54, 58, 13).
The Examiner further relies on the disclosure of Lo Presti that hearing
assistance devices, including hearing aids, provide signal processing
functions such as wide dynamic range compression and output compression
limiting control. (Final Act. 11 (regarding former claim 24); LoPresti ,r 3).
Appellants argue that
Michaelis does not disclose or suggest "personalized
wide dynamic range compression in order to optimize hearing
of one from the group consisting of the caller and the callee" as
recited in claim 25. Likewise, Reynolds does not disclose
compression, much less wide dynamic range compression, in
order to optimize hearing.
(App. Br. 15 (emphasis omitted).) Appellants further contend that there is
"no specific disclosure in Michaelis of a 'non-linear optimization algorithm'
for optimizing a personalization parameter." (App. Br. 15.)
We do not agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that "LoPresti clearly discloses wide dynamic range compression is a
common well-known technique in the art" (Ans. 6-7, citing LoPresti ,r 3)
and Appellants fail to address LoPresti in the Appeal Brief and show no
good cause for the absence of the argument in the Reply. The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, that
10
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
Michaelis discloses multiple ways to optimize the audio
including "spectral shaping" in which different frequencies are
amplified ( col. 5 ln. 14-16) and modifying the length of
particular audio frames including plosive sounds ( col. 5 ln. 20-
22). It is submitted that these are both examples of a "non-
linear" algorithm ... [because] spectral shaping is specifically
adjusting particular frequencies and thus is non-linear by
nature.
(Ans. 7.) We see no error in the Examiner's detailed findings, and
Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings in the Reply. See Reply
Br. 4--5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 25.
Fourth Issue
Appellants argue that Reynolds discloses that "a VoIP session is
established" in which "a second communication session that operates in
parallel to the VoIP communication session is then provided." (App. Br. 16,
citing Reynolds ,r,r 57-58, Fig. 6 block 640.)
Appellants contend that
Michaelis fails to disclose determining an audio personalization
parameter based upon session information and "a hearing
profile," of one selected from the group consisting of a caller
and a callee, in combination with a second audio
personalization parameter based upon a "voice characteristic"
of another selected from the group consisting of the caller and
the callee.
(App. Br. 16.)
We do not agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that "[t]he claim requires both in-band and out-of-band session information.
The claim then defines out-of-band to be a 'channel distinct from the
channel associated with the in-band session."' (Ans. 7.) The Examiner has
11
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
broadly and reasonably interpreted the claim, in which the claimed "session
information" is not limited to information regarding only one session, and
the session information may include information from multiple channels.
Further, the claim does not exclude multiple sessions handling a call, but
instead requires the session information be transmitted using two channels.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that
Michaelis discloses the application of speech adjustment
parameters can be based on the user, user's device, user's
environment, or even network conditions ( col. 5 ln. 44-55).
The parameters are clearly based on "voice characteristic"
because they are determined in response to the hearing test
which includes speech (Fig. 3 and col. 5 ln. 48-55). Different
parameters can be applied for different users during a
communication session (col. 6 ln. 29-38).
(Ans. 8.) We see no error in the Examiner's detailed findings, and
Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings in the Reply. See Reply
Br. 5---6.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 27.
12
Appeal2018-007140
Application 13/837,205
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 12 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 25 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 27 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13