Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2021

2020001571 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2021)

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.
15/412,920 01/23/2017 Emmanuel RAVELLI 110971-9139.US01 8295
22918 7590 06/25/2021
PERKINS COIE LLP - PAO General
P.O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
EXAMINER
KAZEMINEZHAD, FARZAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2021 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EMMANUEL RAVELLI, MANUEL JANDER,
GRZEGORZ PIETRZYK, MARTIN DIETZ,
and MARC GAYER
____________

Appeal 2020-001571
Application 15/412,920
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-001571
Application 15/412,920
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–14, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Corrected Claims Appendix 2–5. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “process[ing] an audio
signal” in which “[a] discontinuity between a filtered past frame and a
filtered current frame of the audio signal is removed using linear predictive
filtering” (Abstr.).
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent; independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for processing an audio signal, the method
comprising:

using linear predictive filtering for removing a
discontinuity between a filtered past frame and a filtered current
frame of the audio signal, the filtered past frame being a past
frame filtered using a set of past filter frame parameters, the
filtered current frame being a current frame filtered using a set
of current frame filter parameters, and the past filter frame
parameters being different from the current frame filter
parameters,

wherein the method comprises filtering the current frame
of the audio signal and removing the discontinuity by
modifying a beginning portion of the filtered current frame by a

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur
Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e. V. as the real party in interest
(Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-001571
Application 15/412,920
3
signal acquired by linear predictive filtering a predefined signal
with initial states of the linear predictive filter defined on the
basis of a last part of an unfiltered past frame filtered using the
set of current frame filter parameters for filtering the current
frame.
Corrected Claims Appendix 2.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Name Reference Date
Taira US 2007/0033015 A1 Feb. 8, 2007
Bessette US 2012/0271644 A1 Oct. 25, 2012
Lecomte US 2013/0124215 A1 May 16, 2013

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections2:
Claims 1–4 and 11–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lecomte (US 2013/0124215 A1; May 16, 2013) and Taira
(US 2007/0033015 A1; Feb. 8, 2007). Final Act. 10.
Claims 5–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lecomte, Taira, and Bessette (US 2012/0271644 A1; Oct.
25, 2012). Final Act. 15.

2 The rejections of: (1) claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b),
and (2) claims 1, 5, and 11–13 under nonstatutory double patenting, were
withdrawn in the Answer. See Final Act 8–9; Ans. 3; Final Act. 24.

Appeal 2020-001571
Application 15/412,920
4
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Lecomte and Taira teaches or suggests the limitations of:
the filtered current frame being a current frame filtered using a
set of current frame filter parameters, and
initial states of the linear predictive filter defined on the basis of
a last part of an unfiltered past frame filtered using the set of
current frame filter parameters for filtering the current frame,
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 11 and 12.

ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments
Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived.).

Limitation 1 re “the current filtered frame”
Appellant argues that Lecomte’s reference to “filtering the MDCT
[modified discrete cosine transformation] coefficients” (Lecomte ¶ 70) does
not refer “to the current frame like the TC [transform coding] frame[] being
filtered” (Appeal Br. 13), because the “the part which the Examiner refers is
not related to a specific frame process, but it is related to the MDCT
coefficients used for transformation the signals in either frame” (Appeal Br.
13). Appellant contends that “the current frame, TCX [transform coded
excitation], is not filtered using a set of current frame parameters, rather, the
Appeal 2020-001571
Application 15/412,920
5
samples of the frame are weighed in block 96 of Fig. 5 to which these
samples are applied” (Appeal Br. 13, internal quotations omitted). In
Appellant’s view, “one might say that the current frame is a current frame
‘weighted’ using a set of weights” (Appeal Br. 13).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that “since a ‘TC frame’ (current frame) in [Lecomte] only
contains ‘MDCT’ coefficients,” then “filtering the ‘MDCT’ coefficients
amounts to filtering a ‘TC frame’ (current frame)” (Ans. 5, citing Lecomte
¶ 70, Fig. 6 Line 2). We note that Lecomte’s “noise shaping” is
accomplished “using spectral information from the LPC [linear prediction
coefficient] filters” (Lecomte ¶ 70), supporting the Examiner’s finding that
Lecomte’s process equates to the claimed “the filtered current frame being a
current frame filtered using a set of current frame filter parameters.”
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that the disclosure’s
reference to “current frame filter parameters” do “not limit any of the
claimed ‘frame filter parameters’ to any particular filter” (Ans. 5–6, citing
Spec. ¶¶ 59, 55). Appellant’s argument that Lecomte describes “that the
current frame is a current frame ‘weighted’ using a set of weights” (Appeal
Br. 13) fails to distinguish Lecomte from the claim limitation at issue as the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that “under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim, even a set of weighting coefficients could serve
as a filter” (Ans. 6).

Limitation 2 re the “initial states of the linear predictive filter”
Appellant argues that “Taira does not include, throughout the entire
disclosure thereof, any hint as to how initial states for any linear predictive
filter, if used at all, may be obtained” (Appeal Br. 15). Appellant contends
Appeal 2020-001571
Application 15/412,920
6
that the cited portion of Taira “only specifies that forward linear prediction
values and backward linear prediction values are to be interpolated so as to
obtain a replacement signal” and “does not refer to any frames or like”
(Appeal Br. 15, citing Taira ¶ 30). Appellant contends that “at best, one
might say that the data block in Taira is somewhat comparable to a frame, as
it is used in the present application, however, all processing occurs within
the single data block or frame” (Appeal Br. 15–16, citing Taira ¶ 34
(emphasis in original)).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Appellant’s “disclosure does not provide any specific
frame parameter requirements” (Ans. 10), and “in speech and/or audio
recognition and processing, a ‘frame’ is referred to as audio and/or speech
data ‘representing a time slice, say, 10-20ms’” (Ans. 9), meaning that “[t]his
indicates the choice of the period of the ‘time slice’ to be at an inventor's
discretion” (Ans. 9–10). The Examiner further finds that
[Taira’s] Fig. 5 shows that the “time slice[s]” “(0, t1)” and “(t2,
t2M+N)” manifest fairly smooth properties, while there is a big
change manifested by high frequency oscillations between the
times t1 and t2.
As a result, the period “(0, t1)” in Taira et al. (Fig. 5) was
mapped to the claim’s “past frame” and the period “(t2, t2M+N)”
was mapped to the claim's “current frame”. The Period “(0, t1)”
is identified with the “forward linear prediction values” . . . and
the period or interval “(t2, t2M+N)” is identified with the
“backward linear prediction values”

(Ans. 10, citing Taira ¶¶ 27, 28). The Examiner’s thorough analysis (see
Ans. 10–11) both provides a mapping to the claim and explains why one
skilled in the art would look to Taira, as the introduction of noise to a section
of an otherwise smooth signal resembles a discontinuity, such as that created
Appeal 2020-001571
Application 15/412,920
7
by the “aliasing” inherent in use of a MDCT-encoded frame surrounded by
frames encoded in other manners. See Lecomte Fig. 6, ¶ 70; see also ¶ 82.
Further, Taira teaches that the noise in such a signal section can be
ameliorated through forward linear prediction and backward linear
prediction (see Taira ¶ 31) for which the Examiner properly finds as reading
on the limitation at issue.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 11 and 12 commensurate
in scope, and all dependent claims not separately argued.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Lecomte
and Taira teaches or suggests the limitations of:
the filtered current frame being a current frame filtered using a
set of current frame filter parameters,

and
initial states of the linear predictive filter defined on the basis of
a last part of an unfiltered past frame filtered using the set of
current frame filter parameters for filtering the current frame,

as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 11 and 12.

DECISION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Ba
sis
Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 11–14 103 Lecomte, Taira 1–4, 11–
14

Appeal 2020-001571
Application 15/412,920
8
5–10 103 Lecomte, Taira,
Bessette
5–10
OVERALL
OUTCOME
1–14

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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