IMMERSION NETWORKS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 26, 2021

2021004972 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 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.
16/568,858 09/12/2019 James David Johnston 150114.00025 1082
33649 7590 11/26/2021
Mr. Christopher John Rourk
Jackson Walker LLP
2323 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201
EXAMINER
VO, HUYEN X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2021 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 JAMES DAVID JOHNSTON and KING WEI HOR
Appeal 2021-004972
Application 16/568,858
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Immersion Networks, Inc.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2021-004972
Application 16/568,858

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “audio signal processing, and in particular,
to systems, methods, and apparatuses to encode and decode high frequency
audio signals.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for encoding an audio signal, comprising:
using one or more algorithms operating on a processor to
filter an input audio signal into two output signals, wherein each
output signal has a sampling rate that is equal to a sampling rate
of the input audio signal, and wherein one of the output signals
includes high frequency data;
using one or more algorithms operating on the processor
to window the high frequency data by selecting a set of the high
frequency data and windowing the selected high frequency data
in time domain;
using one or more algorithms operating on the processor
to determine a set of linear predictive coding (LPC) coefficients
for the windowed data;
using one or more algorithms operating on the processor
to generate energy scale values for the windowed data; and
using one or more algorithms operating on the processor
to generate an encoded high frequency bitstream.
6. A method for decoding data, comprising:
decoding an encoded high frequency audio signal
bitstream and encoded spectral parameters of the encoded high
frequency audio signal bitstream using one or more algorithms
operating on a processor, wherein the encoded spectral
parameters include linear predictive coding (LPC) coefficients
and energy scale values;
generating a windowed noise signal corresponding to the
energy scale values using one or more algorithms operating on
the processor; and
Appeal 2021-004972
Application 16/568,858

3
reconstructing a decoded high frequency signal from the
windowed noise signal using the LPC coefficients, using one or
more algorithms operating on the processor.
Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on these references:
Name Reference Date
Bossemeyer US 2005/0096900 A1 May 5, 2005
Yoshida US 2009/0319264 A1 Dec. 24, 2009
Vos US 8,140,324 B2 Mar. 20, 2012
Voncken US 2020/0126410 A1 Apr. 23, 2020
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Vos. Final Act. 3.
Claims 2–4, 7–9, 11–13, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Vos and Bossemeyer. Final Act. 4.
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vos, Bossemeyer, and Yoshida. Final Act. 6.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Vos and Voncken. Final Act. 6.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Vos, Bossemeyer, and Voncken. Final Act. 7.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Vos anticipates
claim 1?

2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only.
Appeal 2021-004972
Application 16/568,858

4
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Vos anticipates
claim 6?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Bossemeyer teaches
or suggests “wherein the encoded spectral parameters include at least one
peak value of the encoded high frequency audio signal bitstream,” as recited
in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Claim 1 is rejected by the Examiner has anticipated by Vos. Claim 1
recites “using one or more algorithms operating on a processor to filter an
input audio signal into two output signals, wherein each output signal has a
sampling rate that is equal to a sampling rate of the input audio signal, and
wherein one of the output signals includes high frequency data.” Appeal
Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that the
respective outputs of low pass filter 110 and high pass filter 130 depicted in
Vos’s Figure 3A disclose the claim 1’s recitation of “filter[ing] an input
audio signal into two output signals, wherein each output signal has a
sampling rate that is equal to a sampling rate of the input audio signal, and
wherein one of the output signals includes high frequency data.” Final
Act. 3. Although Vos’s Figure 3A shows the output signals being down
sampled, the Examiner finds that the sampling rate of both the low band and
high band signals is unchanged prior to being processed by their respective
down samplers, and therefore meets the limitation. Id. (citing Vos Fig. 4A;
col. 6, ll. 46–67; col. 7, ll. 42–51). The Examiner further finds Vos discloses
“window[ing] the high frequency data by selecting a set of the high
frequency data and windowing the selected high frequency data in time
Appeal 2021-004972
Application 16/568,858

5
domain.” Final Act. 3 (citing Vos col. 10, ll. 61–col. 11, l. 8; Figure 10,
analysis module A210).
Appellant asserts that Vos does not disclose this limitation because
Vos “explicitly refers to down sampling the input signal.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant further argues that because Vos down samples the input signal and
because the high frequency output signals have a lower sampling rate than
the input signal, Vos cannot disclose the limitation, “using one or more
algorithms operating on the processor to window the high frequency data by
selecting a set of the high frequency data and windowing the selected high
frequency data in time domain.” Id. We agree with Appellant.
Anticipation is a test of strict identity. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-
U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002). That is, to meet the
strict identity requirement for anticipation, all elements must be disclosed, in
a single reference, in exactly the same way as they are arranged or combined
in the claim. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325,
1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
As noted above, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that in Vos’s
Figure 3A the immediate output of the low pass and high pass filters
110/130 include one high frequency signal, and these output by the filters
have not yet been down sampled. However, the Examiner further finds that
the high frequency data in the high frequency signal is windowed. However,
this windowing occurs only after down sampling has occurred. Thus, the
high frequency data that is windowed does not have a sampling rate that is
equal to a sampling rate of the input audio signal. Rather, the windowed
high-frequency data in Vos has a sampling rate that has been down sampled,
and therefore is less than the sampling rate of the input signal. Claim 1
Appeal 2021-004972
Application 16/568,858

6
requires a sampling rate that is equal to a sampling rate of the input audio
signal. As such, the process disclosed in Vos is not exactly the same as that
which is claimed, and does not meet the strict identity test for anticipation.
We, therefore, agree with Appellant the Examiner has failed to establish that
Vos discloses each and every limitation of claim 1, arranged exactly as in
claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1). For the same reason, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claim 10 which recites the same limitation discussed above.
Second Issue
Independent claim 6 is also rejected as anticipated by Vos. In
rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds that it is “directed to a decoder method
. . . for decoding a signal encoded by the method . . . of [claim 1]. Since [a]
decoder is merely a reversed process of an encoder, [claim 1 is] also
anticipated by Vos.” Final Act. 4. Appellant argues the rejection is in error
because “Vos does not disclose receiving an encoded high-frequency
bitstream.” Appeal Br. 10. We are not persuaded of error.
Unlike claim 1, the decoding method of claim 6 does not include the
encoding requirement of claim 1 that the encoded signal have the same
sampling rate as the raw signal. It was this requirement that was the basis
for reversing the rejection of claim 1. In contrast, claim 6 recites a decoding
process of an encoded signal, but does specify the method by which the
signal is encoded. Plaintiff asserts that “Vos does not disclose receiving an
encoded high frequency bitstream” because “Vos does not disclose any way
for a single high frequency bitstream to be generated, or for a single high
frequency bitstream to be received.” Appeal Br. 9, 10. However,
Appellant’s assertion relies only on a single statement in Vos’s description,
Appeal 2021-004972
Application 16/568,858

7
and does not provide any explanation for why the portions of Vos relied
upon by the Examiner (see, e.g., Final Act. 4 (citing Vos Figs. 5b, 6, 9, and
10)), are insufficient. Without such an explanation, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner erred in finding Vos discloses generating and receiving an
“encoded high frequency bitstream,” as claimed, and we sustain the rejection
of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). For the same reasons, we also
sustain the rejection of independent claim 15, which is commensurate in
scope.
Third Issue
Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and additionally recites, “wherein the
encoded spectral parameters include at least one peak value of the encoded
high frequency audio signal.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). The
Examiner rejects claim 7 as obvious over the combined teachings of Vos and
Bossemeyer. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Bossemeyer ¶¶ 38–43, claim 8).
Appellant argues the rejection is in error because “Bossemeyer fails to
disclose any processing that is performed on a bitstream.” Appeal Br. 13.
We are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. The Examiner explains
in the Answer that a “‘bitstream’ is merely a series of binary codes known as
bits in all digital systems” and that “Bossemeyer discloses processing a
signal in a digital system (paragraph 34).” Ans. 5. Appellant’s argument
does not address this finding made by the Examiner. Consequently,
Appellant has not shown error in the rejection of claim 7, and we sustain its
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant presents the same argument with
respect to dependent claims 8, 9, and 16–18, which are also rejected as
obvious over Vos and Bossemeyer. Appeal Br. 13–14. For the same
reasons we also sustain the rejection of these claims.
Appeal 2021-004972
Application 16/568,858

8
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
other claims. Accordingly, the remaining claims stand or fall with their
respective independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm in part the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 10, 15 102(a)(1) Vos 6, 15 1, 10
2–4, 7–9, 11–
13, 16–18
103 Vos, Bossemeyer 7–9, 16–
18
2–4, 11–13
5, 14 103 Vos, Bossemeyer,
Yoshida
5, 14
19 103 Vos, Voncken 19
20 103 Vos, Bossemeyer,
Voncken
20
Overall
Outcome
6–9, 15–
18
1–5, 10–
14, 19, 20

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART