Ex Parte LI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201611340400 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation