Ex Parte Sampat

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2017

12334205 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2017)

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.
12/334,205 12/12/2008 Kuntal Sampat 080473 (1059707) 7778
15093 7590
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
MIYOSHI, JESSE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2896
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcominst@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUNTAL SAMP AT
Appeal 2016-006108
Application 12/334,2051
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—29 and 32. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Qualcomm, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006108
Application 12/334,205
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a wireless headset for
simultaneously connecting two or more separate audio source devices.
Appeal Br. 2. In particular, the invention relates to headsets that permit the
playback of multiple audio sources at once. Id. For example, the headset
can play music while also outputting voice call audio. Id.', see also Ans. 2
(providing Examiner’s summary of the invention). The headset may apply
weighting coefficients to mix incoming audio streams or produce
“advanced” audio effects. See, e.g., Spec. 45, 49. Claim 1, reproduced
below with emphasis added to certain key recitations and spacing added for
readability, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A wireless headset, comprising:
a first transceiver configured to receive a first audio input
from a first source;
a second transceiver configured to receive a second audio
input from a second source;
a memory configured to store a plurality of audio
signal weighting coefficient sets, wherein each of the
weighting coefficient sets corresponds to a predetermined
mix of the first audio input and the second audio input, and
each of the weighting coefficient sets includes a plurality of
programmable digital weighting coefficient values;
a controller configured to change the weighting coefficient
values stored in the memory;
and
an audio mixer, coupled to the memory, configured to:
2 In this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action dated June 3, 2015
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed November 19, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer dated April 21, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed June 2, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2016-006108
Application 12/334,205
select one of the weighting coefficient sets stored in
the memory, the selected weighting coefficient set
associated with a desired mix of the first audio input and
the second audio input;
weight the first audio input and the second audio
input with the weighting coefficient values of the selected
weighting coefficient set to produce a weighted first audio
input and a weighted second audio input, wherein at least
one of the weighting coefficient values weights the first
audio input from the first source and at least one other of
the weighting coefficient values weights the second audio
input from the second source, and
combine the weighted first audio input and the
weighted second audio input into output audio.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App’x). The three other independent claims on
appeal, claims 9, 16, and 22, include similar recitations regarding storing and
making use of weighting coefficient sets. Id. at 21, 23—24.
REJECTION AND REFERENCES
The Examiner rejects claims 1—29 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wingate, US 6,006,115, Dec. 21, 1999 (“Wingate”) in
view of Van Engelen et al., US 2006/0166715 Al, July 27, 2006 (“Van
Engelen”), Nishioka et al., US 2005/0096766 Al, May 5, 2005
(“Nishioka”), and Fechtel et al., US 2007/0002955 Al, Jan. 4, 2007
(“Fechtel”). Final Act. 5.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects all claims on appeal as obvious over Wingate,
Van Engelen, Nishioka, and Fechtel. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that
Wingate teaches a wireless headset with an audio mixer that may
superimpose an audio alert over music or other audio programming for an
incoming phone call. Id. Wingate may superimpose the alert “with or
3
Appeal 2016-006108
Application 12/334,205
without decreasing the volume of the programming.” Wingate 4:33—36.
The Examiner finds that Wingate may not explicitly teach a memory
configured to store a plurality of audio signal weighting coefficients and the
various recitations relating to these coefficients. Final Act. 6—7.
The Examiner finds that Nishioka teaches mixing audio data A and
audio data B based on coefficient values. Final Act. 7; see also Nishioka
| 81. The Examiner also finds that Nishioka teaches a memory because its
operation coefficient generation circuit 35 would have a memory with stored
coefficient values which would be output to multiplier 33. Final Act. 7. The
Examiner further finds that Fechtel explicitly teaches a memory configured
to store a plurality of “audio signal weighting coefficient sets” and that
Fechtel teaches programmability of these sets. Id. at 7—8; see also Fechtel
149 (discussing programmable memory 9 containing weighting
coefficients).
Appellant’s combined arguments establish Examiner error. As
Appellant persuasively argues, the Examiner has not shown that a person of
skill in the art would have considered the teachings of Fechtel when
considering the problem of combining audio signals from different sources.
Appeal Br. 14 (“there is nothing in the teachings of Fechtel that would
logically commend itself to the inventor in this case”). Fechtel relates to
reducing noise from OFDM (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing)
signals. Id. at 13; Reply Br. 6—7; see also Fechtel Tflf 2—11. The Examiner
has not provided a sufficient rationale for how and why a person of ordinary
skill in the art, absent hindsight, would have adapted Fechtel’s teachings to
adjust audio inputs into combined audio signals.
4
Appeal 2016-006108
Application 12/334,205
The Examiner responds that the rejection only relies on Fechtel for its
use in the field of signal processing of weighted coefficient sets. Ans. 7.
While Fechtel teaches storing weighted coefficient sets, Fechtel does not
address any problem in common with Appellant’s claims or the other cited
references. Fechtel does not, for example, use weighted coefficient sets to
adjust the input of multiple audio signals. Thus, the Examiner errs by
relying on Fechtel without adequately explaining why a person of skill in the
art would have reason to modify the Wingate/Van Engelen/Nishioka
combination based on the teachings of Fechtel. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[I]t can be important to identify a
reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”)
Appellant further argues that the combined references do not teach or
suggest a memory configured to store weighting coefficients corresponding
to audio signals. Appeal Br. 9—10. The Examiner’s finding thatNishioka
teaches such a memory (Final Act. 7) is not supported by the preponderance
of the evidence. Rather, Nishioka merely teaches that its weighting
coefficients are output from operation coefficient generation circuit 35.
Nishioka 1 81; see also, e.g., id. at|| 37, 68, 70, Figures 1, 10. While
Nishioka’s paragraph 70 refers to the circuit generating “predetermined
interpolating operation coefficient strings,” this discussion is in a much
different context than Wingate or Appellant’s claim. Meanwhile, Nishioka’s
use of the phrase “operation coefficient generation circuit” suggests that the
circuit may generate coefficients rather than retrieving and changing
coefficients stored in memory. See also Nishioka Figure 1 (depicting
operation coefficient generation circuit 35 without depicting a changeable
5
Appeal 2016-006108
Application 12/334,205
memory that circuit could pull values from). Thus, as a whole, Nishioka is
unclear, and a preponderance of the evidence does not establish that
Nishioka teaches storage of weighted coefficient sets.
Because Nishioka is unclear and because the Examiner has not
established that a person of skill would have made use of the teachings of
Fechtel in this context, Appellant has successfully established a lack of
evidence sufficient to support the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
1. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985—86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the
Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness. . . .”) (quoting In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). We therefore do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or of the claims depending from claim 1.
Independent claims 9, 16, and 22 include similar recitations but have
different scope. Claim 22, for example, is written in means-plus-fimction
format and these claims must be “construed to cover the corresponding
structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112; see also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792
F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In rejecting these claims, the Examiner’s
analysis is substantially the same as that provided for claim 1. Final Act.
11—16 (claim 9), 17—21 (claim 16), 23—27 (claim 22). The analysis is in
error for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1. We
therefore also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 16, and 22
and do not sustain the rejection of claims that depend from those claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-29 and 32.
6
Appeal 2016-006108
Application 12/334,205
REVERSED
7