Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

11340400 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111340,400 0112512006 Henry Li
121419 7590 03/30/2016
Oblon/Broadcom Corporation
1940 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
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.
431529US8CONT 9692
EXAMINER
GAY,SONIAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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
ahudgens@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENRY LI, DAVID M. ENNS, JORDAN J. NICOL,
KENNY C. KWAN, ROSS MITCHELL, WILF LEBLANC,
KEN UNGER, JOHN PAYTON, SHAWN STEVENSON,
BILL BOORA, and ONUR TACKIN
Appeal2014-006081
Application 11/340,400
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1---69, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Broadcom Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006081
Application 11/340,400
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to voice and data exchange over a packet
based network. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method of processing signals for transmission over a
packet based network, the method comprising:
receiving a signal through at least one input port;
determining whether the received signal is a modulated non-
voiceband signal or a voiceband signal;
in response to determining that the received signal is a
modulated nonvoiceband signal, demodulating the received
signal and outputting onto the packet based network the
demodulated signal;
in response to determining that the received signal is a
voiceband signal, determining whether voice activity is present
in the voiceband signal, wherein the determining is operable in
any one of a plurality of operating modes, each operating mode
having a separate adjustable energy threshold controlling
encoded voice quality and bandwidth of the voiceband signal;
in response to determining that voice activity is present in the
voiceband signal, encoding the voiceband signal and outputting
onto the packet based network the encoded signal; and
in response to determining that voice activity is not present in
the voiceband signal, generating a comfort noise parameter to
be selectively outputted onto the packet based network.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12-16, 18-25, 27-29, 31, 34, 36-38, 41, 44, 46-48,
51, 54, 56-58, 61, 64, and 66-68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Jacobi et al. (US 6,249,531 B 1;
issued June 19, 2001), Li et al. (US 6,381,570 B2; issued Apr. 30, 2002),
and Supplee et al. (US 6,381,568 Bl; issued Apr. 30, 2002).
2
Appeal2014-006081
Application 11/340,400
Claims 3, 6, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Jacobi, Li, Supplee, and Cohen
et al. (US 5,825,771; issued Oct. 20, 1998).
Claims 4, 5, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jacobi, Li, Supplee, Cohen, and
Manzado et al. (US 6,490,294B1; issued Dec. 3, 2002).
Claims 17 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jacobi, Li, Supplee, and Kurtz (US
6,822,755 B2; issued Nov. 23, 2004).
Claims 30, 39, 40, 49, 50, 59, 60, and 69 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Jacobi, Li,
Supplee, and Aihara (US 6,134,519; issued Oct. 17, 2000).
Claims 32, 33, 42, 43, 52, 53, 62, and 63 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jacobi, Li, Supplee,
and DesBlache et al. (US 4,672,669; issued June 9, 1987).
Claims 35, 45, 55, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jacobi, Li, Supplee, and Vahatalo et al. (US
5,963,901; issued Oct. 5, 1999).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1---69 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2014-006081
Application 11/340,400
We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 3-29, 31-34, 36--39, 41--44,
46--48, 51-54, 56--59, 61-64, and 66--69
Appellants argue that the cited portions of Li do not teach or suggest
the step:
in response to determining that the received signal is a
voiceband signal, determining whether voice activity is present
in the voiceband signal, wherein the determining is operable in
any one of a plurality of operating modes, each operating mode
having a separate adjustable energy threshold controlling
encoded voice quality and bandwidth of the voiceband signal,
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-20.
1A..ppellants contend that the first and second energy thresholds in Li
"do not appear to pertain to multiple operating modes." Id. at 12.
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in finding that "the determining step
has to be operable in one of a plurality of operating modes that has an
adjustable energy threshold, which controls encoded voice quality and
bandwidth .... " Id. at 15. Appellants further argue that the Examiner must
show that the determining step in the prior art is operable in any one of a
plurality of operating modes, not merely a single operating mode. Id.
We are not persuaded of error. We agree with the Examiner that "a
broad interpretation of the aforementioned limitation requires that the
determining step has to be operable in one of a plurality of operating modes
that has an adjustable energy threshold, which controls encoded voice
4
Appeal2014-006081
Application 11/340,400
quality and bandwidth .... " Non-Final Act. 17. The Examiner finds that Li
discloses that the determining step operates in three different states (id. at 18
(citing Li col. 2, 11. 54--67)), wherein each state has its own adjustable energy
threshold (id. (citing Li col. 8, 11. 22--40, 45-50, col. 9, 11. 5-10, 40--45) ), and
that "a noise signal is distinguished from an active voice signal in one of
these states, the converged state" (id. (citing Li col. 7, 11. 40-67, col. 8, 1. 60-
col. 9, 1. 10) ). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Li discloses the
required one of a plurality of operating modes with separate adjustable
energy thresholds. Id.
Appellants next contend that the Examiner errs in relying on Li's
disclosure of smoothing for the recited "controlling encoded voice quality
and bandwidth of the voiceband signal." In particular, Appellants argue
that: (i) "variable smoothing applied to the output of a threshold detector is a
different concept from having multiple energy thresholds" (App. Br. 13);
(ii) "by relying on smoothing for affecting voice quality and bandwidth
savings, Li in fact teaches away from having separate energy thresholds in
multiple operating modes to control 'encoded voice quality and bandwidth
of the voiceband signal"' (id. at 14); and (iii) the Examiner incorrectly finds
that "the energy thresholds do control the voice quality and bandwidth" in Li
(id. at 14).
We are not persuaded of error. Appellants have not explained
persuasively how the recited "controlling of encoded voice quality and
bandwidth of the voiceband signal," in claim 1 differs from the cited
variable smoothing in Li. See App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2. Nor have
Appellants persuasively explained how Li's use of smoothing teaches away
from having separate energy thresholds in multiple operating modes to
5
Appeal2014-006081
Application 11/340,400
control encoded voice quality and bandwidth of the voiceband signal.
Appellants merely state that "Li appears to provide a constant encoded voice
quality using [three] states." App. Br. 14.
The Examiner responds that Li does not disclose that smoothing will
produce a "constant encoded voice quality" because Li discloses that "the
converged state has more reliable noise and signal estimates" than the
learning state and, therefore, "the voice quality of a learning state signal
would still be poorer after smoothing compared to converged state signal."
Ans. 17-18 (citing Li col. 2, 11. 54--63). Appellants present no persuasive
rebuttal to those findings. See Reply Br. 2. Moreover, the Examiner
explains how the energy thresholds control the encoded voice quality and
bandwidth of the voiceband signal in conjunction with smoothing. Non-
Final Act. 18-19. Appellants present no persuasive argument or evidence to
rebut those findings. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 2.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in
finding that the combination of Jacobi, Li, and Supplee teaches or suggests
the disputed claim limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 7, 12, and 21, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similar reasons. App. Br. 20-45. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2, 8, 13-16, 18-20, 22-25, 27-29, 31, 34, 36-
38, 41, 44, 46-48, 51, 54, 56-58, 61, 64, and 66-68, for which Appellants
make no arguments other than those for the independent claims from which
those claims depend. Id. at 45. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 3---6, 9-11, 17, 26, 32, 33, 42, 43, 52, 53, 62, and 63, for
6
Appeal2014-006081
Application 11/340,400
which Appellants refer to and rely on the arguments made for independent
claims 1, 7, 12, and 21. Id. at 46-52, 55-56. We also sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 39, 59, and 69, for which
Appellants present no arguments other than those made for the independent
claims from which they depend. 2 Id. at 55.
Claims 30, 40, 49, 50, and 60
Appellants contend that the combination of Jacobi, Li, Supplee, and
Aihara does not disclose the limitations "generating a second comfort noise
parameter using a certain duration of received voice signals without voice
activity that immediately follows a period of received voice signals with
voice activity" and "generating comfort noise using the second comfort
noise parameter during periods of received voice signals without voice
activity," recited in claim 30. App. Br. 52. In particular, Appellants argue
that Aihara teaches generating background noise based on a post-amble
signal and a background updating code series, "neither of which appears to
correspond to the claimed 'certain duration of received voice signals without
voice activity.'" Id. at 54.
We are not persuaded of error. Appellants attack Aihara individually,
while the Examiner relies on the combination of Aihara, Jacobi, Li, and
Supplee in rejecting claim 30. See Non-Final Act. 12; In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, the Examiner explains that
the post-amble signal and background updated code in Aihara meet the
2 Appellants incorrectly state that claims 39, 59, and 69, depend from claims
30, 50, and 60, respectively. See App. Br. 55. Claim 39 depends from claim
36, which depends from claim 1. Claim 59 depends from claim 56, which
depends from claim 12. Claim 69 depends from claim 66, which depends
from claim 21. App. Br. 71-77.
7
Appeal2014-006081
Application 11/340,400
recited "second comfort noise parameter" element and the background noise
in Aihara meets the recited "comfort noise" element. Ans. 20-21. Thus,
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate in scope with the Examiner's
findings. The Examiner further explains that Ahira generates background
noise for every N x 40 ms of received unvoiced signals and, because
unvoiced signals are signals without voice activity, the background noise is
generated during periods of signals without voice activity. Id. (citing Aihara
col. 1, 11. 34--38, 1. 59---col. 2, 1. 5, col. 2, 11. 4--12). Appellants present no
rebuttal in the Reply Brief.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in
finding that the combination of Jacobi, Li, Supplee, and Aihara teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 30.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 30,
as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 40, 50, and 60, which
Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 55. We also
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 49, for which Appellants
make no arguments other than those made for dependent claim 40, from
which claim 49 depends.
Claims 35, 44, 55, and 65
Appellants argue that the cited portions Vahatalo do not disclose that
the step of determining whether voice activity is present in the voiceband
signal "performs auto-correlation to compare estimates based on a first
period of background noise to estimates based on a second period of digital
voice samples, and wherein the first period is longer than the second
period," as recited in claim 35. See App. Br. 58---60.
8
Appeal2014-006081
Application 11/340,400
We are not persuaded of error. Appellants attack Vahatalo
individually, even though the Examiner relies on the combination of
Vahatalo with Jacobi, Li, and Supplee in rejecting claim 35. See Non-Final
Act. 15. Moreover, the Examiner explains in the Answer that Vahatalo
discloses that autocorrelation is used to create spectrum components (Ans.
21 (citing Vahatalo col. 5, 11. 6-30)), and the spectrum components are
compared to noise estimates (id. (citing Vahatalo col. 7, 11. 14--37)).
Appellants present no rebuttal in the Reply Brief.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in
finding that the combination of Jacobi, Li, Supplee, and Vahatalo teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 3 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 35,
as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 45, 55, and 65, which
Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 60.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---69 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
9