Ex Parte SONG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2017

11842305 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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. 11/842,305 08/21/2007 JIANMING J. SONG CS28453RL 3139 124224 7590 03/22/2017 Morris & Kamlay LLP/ 030120-M 1911 N. Fort Myer Drive Suite 1050 Arlington, VA 22209 EXAMINER GANMAVO, KUASSI A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2655 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2017 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): pto @ morriskamlay. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIANMING J. SONG and JOEL A. CLARK Appeal 2014-001285 Application 11/842,305 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MINN CHUNG, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3—7, and 10-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 8, and 9 have been canceled. App. Br. 2. We AFFIRM.2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Motorola Mobility, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Google, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed March 14, 2013 (“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed November 4, 2013 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed September 4, 2013 (“Ans.”); and Final Office Action mailed August 1, 2012 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2014-001285 Application 11/842,305 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1,14, and 17 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A noise suppression circuit for use in an audio signal processing circuit, the noise suppression circuit comprising: a plurality of different types of noise activity detectors including a babble noise activity detector and a stationary noise activity detector, where each noise activity detector is adapted for detecting the presence of a different type of noise in a received signal; and a plurality of different types of noise reduction circuits including a noise attenuation circuit and a noise subtraction circuit, where each noise reduction circuit is adapted for removing a different type of detected noise, where each noise reduction circuit respectively corresponds to one of the plurality of noise activity detectors with the noise attenuation circuit corresponding to the stationary noise detector and the noise subtraction circuit corresponding to the babble noise activity detector; wherein when each one of the plurality of noise activity detectors detects the presence of a corresponding type of noise in the received signal, the respective noise reduction circuit is selectively activated to condition the received signal to reduce the amount of the detected types of noise. References Graupe Etter Kim Wu US 5,097,510 US 6,760,435 B1 US 2006/0074640 A1 US 7,725,314 B2 Mar. 17, 1992 July 6, 2004 Apr. 6, 2006 May 25, 2010 Tetsuya Shimamura and Junpei Yamauchi, “Spectral Subtraction with Non-Stationary Noise Estimation Utilizing Harmonic Structure” 4th WSEAS International conferences on Electronics, Control and Signal Processing, November 2005 “Yamauchi.” 2 Appeal 2014-001285 Application 11/842,305 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graupe and Kim. Final Act. 3—5. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graupe, Kim, and Yamauchi. Final Act. 5. Claims 4—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graupe, Kim, and Wu. Final Act. 6—8. Claims 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graupe, Kim, and Etter. Final Act. 8—13. ISSUE The issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Graupe and Kim renders obvious the subject matter of claims 1 and 17, and in particular, the limitation reciting: a plurality of different types of noise reduction circuits including a noise attenuation circuit and a noise subtraction circuit, where each noise reduction circuit is adapted for removing a different type of detected noise, where each noise reduction circuit respectively corresponds to one of the plurality of noise activity detectors with the noise attenuation circuit corresponding to the stationary noise detector and the noise subtraction circuit corresponding to the babble noise activity detector. See App. Br. 6—9; Reply Br. 1—6. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Graupe discloses detecting different kinds of noise and, therefore, teaches “a stationary noise detector” and “a babble noise activity detector,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Graupe, col. 3,11. 10—55). We agree because Graupe discloses: 3 Appeal 2014-001285 Application 11/842,305 Once the frequency content of the noise components of the incoming signal has thus been determined via the envelope filtering above, the artificial intelligence subsystem (see FIG. controller subsystem 250) will recognize one of 4 situations, namely (I.) no noise (noise at a level below a given level three), (II.) white noise, (noise having a substantially flat spectrum according to threshold level parameters at various frequencies or frequency bands as stored in the artificial intelligence recognizer sub-system). (III.) Babble noise (namely noise due to several speakers speaking simultaneously at the background such that their phonemes mix to form an envelope component that lasts longer at a given frequency location than had it been due to a single-speaker’s speech signal: and (IV.) noise other than (I) to (III) (namely, noise that peaks at one or several frequency ranges but which is not babble noise). Graupe, col. 3,11. 10-25 (emphases added). Thus, Graupe discloses detecting two types of noise—white noise and babble noise. Graupe further discloses a “filter sub-system,” which acts on the white noise and the babble noise. Graupe, col. 3,11. 27-42. The Examiner finds that the filter in Graupe that acts on the white noise teaches a “noise attenuation circuit,” as claimed. Final Act. 3 (citing Graupe, col. 3,11. 30- 55). However, the Examiner states that Graupe “do[es] not expressly disclose a noise subtraction circuit corresponding to the babble noise activity detector,” and the Examiner relies on Kim for teaching a noise subtraction circuit. Final Act. 3 (citing Kim | 62). We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness based on the combined teachings of Graupe and Kim. As an initial matter, Appellants’ Specification broadly describes that “[t]he noise subtraction circuit 318 subtracts noise components from the signal being processed.” Spec. 7,11. 27—28. Although Graupe does not describe its “babble energy” filter as a “noise subtraction circuit” explicitly, Graupe 4 Appeal 2014-001285 Application 11/842,305 describes that its babble filter “notch[es] out low frequencies where most babble energy is concentrated.” Graupe, col. 3,11. 40-42. As such, Graupe’s babble filter “subtracts noise components from the signal being processed,” consistent with the description of a “noise subtraction circuit” in Appellants’ Specification (see Spec. 7,11. 27—28); therefore, Graupe teaches or at least suggests a “noise subtraction circuit.” Appellants argue that Kim’s spectral subtraction would not have been used to address babble noise because spectral subtraction is not really noise subtraction as identified in the present application, but is more akin to a form of general reduction of power in certain areas of the spectrum, which involves a determination of average power often during speech inactive periods and a subtraction of the same in the frequency spectrum. App. Br. 9. However, as explained above, Appellants’ Specification broadly describes noise subtraction as “subtracting] noise components from the signal being processed.” Spec. 7,11. 27—28. Appellants’ arguments fail to explain how reducing power in some areas of the spectrum is not within the scope of subtracting noise components from a signal, as described in Appellants’ Specification or as claimed in the “noise subtraction circuit” limitation. Additionally, Appellants’ contentions that Kim “counsels] against the use of spectral subtraction in instances involving babble type noise” and that Kim’s teaching of spectral subtraction may be “less suitable for babble type noise” or “less tenacious against babble type noise” (App. Br. 8—9) are not persuasive because, although spectral subtraction alone may be inferior, Kim does not teach away from claim 1. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A known or obvious composition does not become patentable 5 Appeal 2014-001285 Application 11/842,305 simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.”). Appellants further argue that Graupe and Kim “are inconsistent” because Graupe “focuse[s] on the type of noise, and then applies] a different form of noise attenuation dependent upon the type of noise detected” whereas Kim “does not focus on a determination of a type of noise, and uses a different type of detection focused on the type of the desired signal that is present to select the different noise reduction techniques.” App. Br. 7. However, as stated in the Answer, “the Examiner refers to the Kim reference for an alternative to the babble noise suppression technique taught by Graupe, but not for the detection of the noise type.” Ans. 3. Thus, Kim is not relied upon for its teaching of babble noise detecting, and, therefore, Appellants’ argument does not persuade us the Examiner erred in relying on Kim in combination with Graupe. Furthermore, we do not read claim 1 to prohibit a further determination as to when to activate a particular noise reduction circuit. Claim 1 recites: “wherein when each one of the plurality of noise activity detectors detects the presence of a corresponding type of noise in the received signal, the respective noise reduction circuit is selectively activated to condition the received signal to reduce the amount of the detected types of noise.” (Emphasis added). We construe claim l’s recitation of “selectively activated,” rather than simply “activated,” to encompass performing further processing to determine if the particular noise reduction circuit is actually activated is within the scope of the claim. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments that Kim is inapplicable because its spectral subtraction technique is applied 6 Appeal 2014-001285 Application 11/842,305 to unvoiced speech, i.e., selectively applied, are unpersuasive. See App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the combination of Graupe and Kim. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We likewise sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3—7 and 10—16, for which Appellants offer no additional persuasive arguments for patentability. See App. Br. 9-11. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3—7, and 10—17. 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 7