Ex Parte Rogers

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 2012

11265437 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2012)

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. 11/265,437 11/01/2005 Kevin Christopher Rogers 4860P3910 6572 45217 7590 12/31/2012 APPLE INC./BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP 1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER GUERRA-ERAZO, EDGAR X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2659 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/31/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KEVIN CHRISTOPHER ROGERS ____________________ Appeal 2010-006858 Application 11/265,437 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. §134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Real Party in Interest is Apple Inc. Appeal Brief filed August 31, 2009 (“App. Br.”). Appeal 2010-006858 Application 11/265,437 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s claims relate to a system and method for providing continuously variable time-frequency resolution in digital audio signal processing through resampling. See generally Spec. ¶0013, ¶0035 and Abstract. Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method of processing a digital audio signal using continuously variable time frequency resolution, the method comprising: selecting a portion of an input digital audio signal, wherein the selected portion comprises a number of input samples; resampling the selected portion of the input digital audio signal; generating a plurality of spectral characteristics associated with the resampled portion of the input digital audio signal; generating a portion of an output digital audio signal from the plurality of spectral characteristics; and resampling the portion of the output digital audio signal to generate a number of output samples, wherein the number of output samples is substantially equal to the number of input samples. Appeal 2010-006858 Application 11/265,437 3 Evidence Considered The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Van Den Enden U.S. 2006/0273938 A1 Dec. 7, 2006 Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1-7 and 9-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Van Den Enden. Ans. 3-6 and 8-14. (2) Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Den Enden. Ans. 7 and 15-16. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner has erred in finding that Van Den Enden discloses all of the limitations of Appellant’s invention as recited in independent claim 1 and, similarly, in independent claims 10 and 19. App. Br. 8-20. In particular, the issue turns on whether Van Den Enden discloses “the number of output samples is substantially equal to the number of input samples” as recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 8-15). III. DISCUSSION §102(e) Rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-25 Appellant contends that Van Den Enden does not disclose several limitations of the claimed invention, including “the number of output samples is substantially equal to the number of input samples” as recited in Appeal 2010-006858 Application 11/265,437 4 independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 19 (App. Br. 8-15; Reply Br. 1-4). In response thereto, the Examiner finds that Van Den Enden, ¶0034- ¶0035 and FIG. 3, discloses that an output signal, y[nT2], can be described as follows: y[nT2]=[xnLT1] (or x[nMT1]). Ans. 8-9. According to the Examiner, the relationship between the fixed/variable sample rate increaser/decreaser shown in FIG. 3, demonstrates that “the number of output samples in the signal y[nT2] is substantially equal to the number of input samples according to the relationship of x[nLT1] = x[nMT1]” (emphasis in the original). Id. However, the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Van Den Enden are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Based on the description of the sample rate converter 12, shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 3, and ¶0033-¶0035 of Van Den Enden, we agree with Appellant that the “relationship of x[nLT1] = x[nMT1]” does not demonstrate that “the number of output samples in the signal y[nT2] is substantially equal to the number of input samples” (emphasis in the original). Reply Br. 1-2. FIG. 1 and FIG. 3, as reproduced below, are helpful to understand Van Den Enden’s invention. FIG. 1 shows a sample rate converter 12 in a form of a variable sample rate decreaser (L). Appeal 2010-006858 Application 11/265,437 5 FIG. 3 shows a sample rate converter 12 in a form of a variable sample rate increaser (L). In either embodiment shown in FIG. 1 or FIG. 3, the sample rate converter of Van Den Enden is configured to switch operation from either (1) an upsampling mode (i.e., the output sample rate is larger than the input sample rate), to (2) a downsampling mode (i.e., the output sample rate is smaller than the input sample rate), or vice versa, via varying the factor L and a control signal (CTRL) applied to the variable sample rate decreaser 3 (see FIG. 1) or increaser 6 (FIG. 3). See ¶0007, ¶0009, and ¶0027 of Van Den Enden. In view of such a disclosure, we agree with Appellant that: (1) the sample rate converter of Van Den Enden does not operate as both upsampling and downsampling at the same time (Reply Br. 3); (2) that the output sample rates of Van Den Enden are either larger or smaller than the input sample rates, but not equal to them (Reply Br. 3); and Van Den Enden does not disclose or suggest resampling the portion of the output digital audio signal to generate a number of output samples, “wherein the number of output samples is substantially equal to the number of input samples,” as recited in independent claim 1 and, similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 19. (Emphasis added.) For the reasons set forth above and evidence of record, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 10 and 19, which contain similar limitations, as well as their Appeal 2010-006858 Application 11/265,437 6 respective dependent claims. Because this issue is dispositive with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-25, we need not reach Appellant’s other arguments directed to additional limitations in independent claim 1 and dependent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e), as well as dependent claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See App. Br. 15-25; Reply Br. 13-16. V. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has erred in rejecting (1) claims 1-7 and 9-25 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Van Den Enden; and (2) claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Den Enden. VI. ORDER As such, we reverse the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) and §103(a). REVERSED ke