Ex Parte Thyssen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 27, 2012

11065132 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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. 11/065,132 02/24/2005 Jes Thyssen 1875.5410001 3365 26111 7590 11/28/2012 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER COLUCCI, MICHAEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/28/2012 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 JES THYSSEN ____________________ Appeal 2010-010080 Application 11/065,132 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2010-010080 Application 11/065,132 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 The Invention Appellant’s invention is directed to a noise feedback coding system and method for providing generalized noise shaping within a simple filter structure and, in particular, to the coding and decoding of speech or other audio signals in a digital communications system. Spec. p. 1, Title and ¶ [0002]. Exemplary Claims Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention which is reproduced below (emphasis added to disputed limitations): 1. An encoder in a noise feedback coding system, comprising: a first combiner that combines an input audio signal and a predicted audio signal to generate a prediction residual signal; a second combiner that combines the prediction residual signal with a noise feedback signal to generate a quantizer input signal; a quantizer that quantizes the quantizer input signal to generate a quantizer output signal; a third combiner that combines the quantizer input signal and the quantizer output signal to generate a quantization error signal; and 1 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Dec. 16, 2009); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 28, 2010); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 31, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed Feb. 19, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Feb. 24, 2005). Appeal 2010-010080 Application 11/065,132 3 a noise feedback filter that filters the quantization error signal to generate the noise feedback signal, wherein the noise feedback filter is an all-zero filter configured to approximate the response of a pole-zero noise feedback filter. Claim 3 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention which is reproduced below (emphasis added to disputed limitations): 3. The encoder of claim 1, wherein the noise feedback filter is configured to have a response substantially equal to that of a truncated finite impulse response of a pole- zero filter. Prior Art The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ng US 5,150,414 Sep. 22, 1992 Chen US 2002/0069052 A1 Jun. 6, 2002 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Ng. Ans. 4. GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based upon Appellant’s arguments against the final rejection and the separate argument for patentability set forth with respect to certain claims on appeal (App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 1-3), and our authority under 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii), we select the following representative claims to decide this appeal in accordance with those arguments and rejections: Appeal 2010-010080 Application 11/065,132 4 Claim 1: Claims 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-24 stand or fall together with independent claim 1. (See App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 1-2). Claim 3: Claims 11, and 19 stand or fall together with dependent claim 3. (See App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 2-3). ISSUES AND ANALYSIS 1. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-24 Appellant’s Contentions Appellant contends that Ng does not teach or suggest that the all-zero filter G(z) of Ng is equivalent to an “all-zero filter configured to approximate the response of a pole-zero noise feedback filter” as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Further, Appellant contends that the Examiner has not provided any explanation as to how the filter G(z), disclosed by Ng, approximates a pole-zero filter. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further contends that the Examiner appears to be disregarding the exact language used in claims 1, 9, and 17 because, allegedly, none of the passages of Ng cited by the Examiner teach or suggest an “all-zero filter configured to approximate the response of a pole-zero noise feedback filter,” as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Id. Finally, Appellant contends that [T]he Examiner provides no reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to approximate the response of the pole-zero filter of Ng using the generalized output equation of an all-zero FIR filter as disclosed by Chen. In fact, the Examiner has conveniently ignored the fact that neither Chen nor Ng disclose, Appeal 2010-010080 Application 11/065,132 5 or even discuss at all, approximating the response of a filter, let alone approximating the response of a pole-zero filter using an all-zero filter. Reply Br. 2. Issue 1 Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chen and Ng teach or suggest an encoder that includes, inter alia, a noise feedback filter, “wherein the noise feedback filter is an all-zero filter configured to approximate the response of a pole-zero noise feedback filter,” as recited in claim 1, and did the Examiner meet his burden in establishing a prima facie case of unpatentability by providing a rational basis for combining the references in the manner suggested? Analysis We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions with respect to claim 1, and 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 and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 4-6, 9-14) in response to Appellant’s Arguments (App. Br. 12-14). However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. In particular, we concur with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 11) that Chen teaches or suggests at ¶ [0117] that noise feedback filter F(z) 1016 in Chen Fig. 1 can take the form of an all-zero filter, i.e.: Appeal 2010-010080 Application 11/065,132 6 We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Chen combined with Ng: renders obvious a noise feedback filter that is an all-zero filter configured to approximate the response of a pole-zero noise feedback filter to allow for a well known use . . . wherein for example, an all-zero filter will truncate signals outside a specific frequency, whereby the combination of an all-zero filter and an pole-zero-zero filter response can be performed through one well known equation . . . [above] that takes into consideration the pole-zero filter of Ng. Ans. 11. We further agree with the Examiner that both Fig. 1 of Chen and Appellant’s Fig. 1 are structurally identical, and that Chen alone teaches all the claim limitations, including the well-known concept of an all-zero noise feedback filter (in the equation of Chen ¶ [0117]), but does not appear to teach that the all-zero noise feedback filter is configured to approximate the response of a pole-zero filter. Ans. 14. Finally, we disagree with Appellant, and find that the Examiner has provided a rational basis for combining Chen and Ng, i.e.: [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Chen to incorporate a noise feedback filter that is an all- zero filter configured to approximate the response of a pole-zero noise feedback filter as taught by Ng to handle unknown noise parameters in a time varying system, wherein predictive signal analysis can be performed and various types of noise (i.e. Appeal 2010-010080 Application 11/065,132 7 ambient, air, water, white, etc.) can be eliminated or reduced to determine the characteristics of the unknown parameters (Ng Col. 3 lines 11-39). Ans. 6. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred, such that we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-24. 2. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3, 11, and 19 Appellant’s Contentions Appellant contends that, although Chen discloses that filter N(z) can be chosen to have a finite-impulse response, Chen does not disclose that the response of the filter is substantially equal to “a truncated finite impulse response of a pole-zero filter” as recited in claims 3, 11, and 19. Appeal Br. 15. In addition, Appellant further contends that Ng also does not teach or suggest such a feature, i.e., a filter that has a response substantially equal to “a truncated finite impulse response of a pole-zero filter,” as recited in claims 3, 11, and 19. Id. Finally, Appellant contends that dependent claims 3, 11, and 19 do not recite truncating a signal through the use of a filter, as alleged by the Examiner. Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2010-010080 Application 11/065,132 8 Issue 2 Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chen and Ng teach or suggest the limitations of dependent claim 3, particularly the limitations that require the response of the all-zero filter to be substantially equal to “a truncated finite impulse response of a pole-zero filter?” Analysis We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s conclusions with respect to the Examiner’s errors in the rejection of claim 3 (App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 2-3), and we disagree with the Examiner’s reasoning (Ans. 15) in response to Appellant’s Arguments. We find that the combination of Chen and Ng fails to teach or suggest the all-zero filter response is substantially equal to a truncated finite impulse response of a pole-zero filter. In addition, we agree with Appellant that the claims do not recite truncating a signal through the use of a filter, as stated by the Examiner. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 3 and, as such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 11, and 19. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred with respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20- 24, such that we sustain the rejection. Appeal 2010-010080 Application 11/065,132 9 (2) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred with respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 3, 11, and 19, such that we do not sustain the rejection. DECISION (1) The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-24 is affirmed. (2) The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3, 11, and 19 is reversed. 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) (2011). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ke