Ex Parte Peck

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2012

10722038 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JEFF PECK
____________________

Appeal 2010-006663
Application 10/722,038
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006663
Application 10/722,038

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5, 8-16, and 20, all the claims pending in the application. Claims
4, 6, 7, and 17-19 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Disclosed Invention
Appellant discloses and claim a method, system, and article including
a computer-readable storage medium for processing voice and audio
information (Spec. ¶¶ [0001] and [0035]-[0038]; Fig. 3; Abs.; claims 1, 9,
and 14).
Exemplary Claim
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below with emphases added:

1. A method, comprising:

receiving a plurality of packets with audio information;

determining by a voice activity detector whether said
audio information represents voice information;

buffering said audio information in a jitter buffer during
said determination;

measuring an average packet delay time by said jitter
buffer; and

adding said average packet delay time to each of the
plurality of packets prior to sending the plurality of packets to a
voice codec;

Appeal 2010-006663
Application 10/722,038

3
wherein said determining comprises:

receiving frames of audio information at a voice activity
detector;

measuring at least one characteristic of said frames;

determining a start of voice information based on said
measurements;

determining an end to said voice information based on
said measurements and a delay interval; and

adjusting said delay interval to correspond to an average
packet delay time.

The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gentle
(US 2004/0073692 A1) and Dowdal (US 7,346,005 B1). Ans. 4-11.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gentle, Dowdal, and
Clemm (US 6,865,162 B1). Ans. 11-13.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 8, 10, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gentle, Dowdal, and
Sih (US 5,920,834). Ans. 13-15.
Appeal 2010-006663
Application 10/722,038

4
Appellant’s Contentions1
Appellant contends (App. Br. 23-27) that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gentle and Dowdal for numerous
reasons, including:
(1) Gentle fails to disclose, teach, or suggest buffering audio
information in a jitter buffer during the detection of voice information as
recited in independent claims 1 and 14; in other words, claims 1 and 14
recite a parallel approach to processing information as opposed to Gentle’s
serial processing approach (App. Br. 23-25; Reply Br. 4-5);
(2) Dowdal fails to cure the deficiencies of Gentle with regard to
claims 1 and 14 (App. Br. 25);
(3) the packets recited in claims 1 and 14 do not have to be different
packets (Reply Br. 4-5);
(4) Gentle fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a jitter buffer to buffer
information during the detection by the voice activity detector as recited in
independent claim 14 (App. Br. 25-27; Reply Br. 5-6);
(5) Dowdal fails to cure the deficiencies of Gentle with regard to
claim 9 (App. Br. 26); and
(6) information is buffered during detection by the voice activity
detector by the jitter buffer (Reply Br. 5-6).
Appellant also argues that claims 2, 3, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, and 20,
rejected under combinations with additional references, are patentable for

1 Appellants do not provide separate patentability arguments for claims 5, 7,
13, 14, and 19.
Appeal 2010-006663
Application 10/722,038

5
the same reasons already argued with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and
14 rejected over the combination of Gentle and Dowdal (Br. 27-28).

Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the briefs, the dispositive issue
presented on appeal is:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 8-16, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the various combinations of
references because Gentle fails to disclose, teach, or suggest (i) buffering
audio information in a jitter buffer during the detection of voice information
as recited in independent claims 1 and 14 and (ii) a jitter buffer to buffer
information during the detection by the voice activity detector as recited in
independent claim 14?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contention in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 23-28) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 3-6) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and 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 the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 4-
19).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive in light of the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions at pages 15-19 of the Answer.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that claims 1, 9,
and 14 do not limit processing of information to a parallel approach or to a
Appeal 2010-006663
Application 10/722,038

6
serial approach. In other words, claims 1, 9, and 14 encompass both a serial
and a parallel processing approach. Therefore, Gentle’s voice based packet
network system and method using a serial processing approach, in
combination with Dowdal’s use of delay based on average packet delay
time, meets the limitations of the claims.
For the above reasons, we will sustain the rejection of (i) claims 1 and
14 and (ii) claim 9. We will also sustain the rejections of (i) dependent
claims 5, 7, 13, 14, and 19 whose merits are not separately argued and (ii)
dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, and 20 argued for the same reasons
as claims 1, 9, and 14 from which these claims respectively depend. In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, and
19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Gentle and Dowdal because Gentle discloses (i) buffering audio information
in a jitter buffer during the detection of voice information as recited in
independent claims 1 and 14 and (ii) a jitter buffer to buffer information
during the detection by the voice activity detector as recited in independent
claim 9.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2, 3, 8, 10-12, 15, 16,
and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Gentle and Dowdal in view of additional references for the reasons
discussed in connection with claims 1, 9, and 14.
(3) Claims 1-3, 5, 8-16, and 20 are not patentable.

Appeal 2010-006663
Application 10/722,038

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8-16, and 20 are 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb