TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2022

2021001491 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2022)

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. 15/573,866 11/14/2017 Harald POBLOTH 3602-1541US2 6286 6449 7590 03/31/2022 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. 607 14TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER KAZEMINEZHAD, FARZAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2022 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-PAT-Email@rfem.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte HARALD POBLOTH and STEFAN BRUHN ________________ Appeal 2021-001491 Application 15/573,866 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1-15 and 17.2,3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claim 16 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 21. 3 Claims 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Final Act. 27. Appeal 2021-001491 Application 15/573,866 2 INVENTION The invention relates to coding of stereo or multi-channel signals with two or more instances of a codec that comprises several codec modes. Spec. 1:5-6. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for encoding a multi-channel audio signal comprising a first audio signal channel and a second audio signal channel, the method being performed in an audio encoder comprising a first codec instance of a codec and a second codec instance of the codec, and the method comprising: the first codec instance obtaining the first audio signal channel; the second codec instance obtaining the second audio signal channel, wherein the second codec instance is distinct from the first codec instance; coordinating a use of an encoding mode for at least the first and second audio signal channels such that the first and second codec instances employ the same encoding mode to encode at least the first and second audio signal channels, wherein the step of coordinating the use of the encoding mode comprises: i) selecting an encoding mode that is supported by both the first codec instance and the second codec instance and ii) providing to the first codec instance of the audio encoder and/or providing to the second codec instance of the audio encoder encoding mode information identifying the selected encoding mode, wherein the first codec instance uses the selected encoding mode to encode the first audio signal channel; and the second codec instance uses the selected encoding mode to encode the second audio signal channel. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added). Appeal 2021-001491 Application 15/573,866 3 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chen (US 2003/0115041 A1; published June 19, 2003), Kim (US 2008/0140392 A1; published June 12, 2008), and Larsson (US 2013/0094605 A1; published Apr. 18, 2013). Final Act. 5. ANALYSIS I. Appellant’s First Reason Claim 1 is Patentable Over the Art The Examiner finds Larsson teaches a channel code could be two random instances of a low-density parity check (hereinafter “LDPC”) code and a LDPC decoder, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “the second codec instance is distinct from the first codec instance” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Larsson ¶ 43); Final Act. 9 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 32, 57). Appellant argues Larsson merely teaches LDPC codes that are a set of bits, which fails to teach a “codec instance” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-9 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 14, 32, 57). Appellant argues the Examiner’s new theory is deficient because Larsson’s 10 iterations are of the same process instead of “two distinct codec instances” as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2- 5 (citing Larsson ¶ 43).4 We disagree with Appellant. Larsson teaches a channel code could be two random (i.e., second distinct from the first) instances of a LDPC code and a LDPC decoder (i.e., codec instance), which teaches the limitation “the second codec instance is distinct from the first codec instance” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing 4 Appellant’s new argument in its Reply Brief is timely because it is based on the Examiner’s citation of a new paragraph in Larsson. Compare Ans. 4 (citing Larsson ¶ 43), with Final Act. 9 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 32, 57). Appeal 2021-001491 Application 15/573,866 4 Larsson ¶ 43); Final Act. 9 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 32, 57). Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of error. II. Appellant’s Second Reason Claim 1 is Patentable The Examiner finds Larsson teaches a channel code could be two random instances of a LDPC code and a LDPC decoder, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “the first and second codec instances employ the same encoding mode” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Larsson ¶ 43); Final Act. 9-10 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 14, 32, 57). Appellant argues Larsson’s channel codes do not “employ” anything and, therefore, Larsson fails to teach “employ the same encoding mode” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-11. We disagree with Appellant. Larsson teaches a channel code could be two random instances (i.e., first and second instances) of a LDPC code (i.e., same encoding mode) and a LDPC decoder (i.e., codec), which teaches the limitation “the first and second codec instances employ the same encoding mode” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Larsson ¶ 43); Final Act. 9-10 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 14, 32, 57). Therefore, Appellant does not persuade us of error. III. Appellant’s Third Reason Claim 1 is Patentable The Examiner finds that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (hereinafter “PHOSITA”) would have combined Larsson’s decoder and Chen to generate encoding data that can be efficiently decoded and to protect against channel noise. Ans. 6-7 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 5, 43); Final Act. 10 (citing Larsson ¶ 31). Appellant argues there is no reason why a PHOSITA would combine Larsson and Chen because Larsson is concerned with transmitting data instead of an audio encoder. Appeal Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5-7. We disagree Appeal 2021-001491 Application 15/573,866 5 with Appellant. One cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In this case, the Examiner relies on Chen to teach an audio encoder. Final Act. 6 (citing Chen ¶ 141, Abstract). Also, the Examiner relies on Larsson to teach a decoder and protecting against channel noise. Ans. 6-7 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 5, 43). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that a PHOSITA would have combined Larsson’s decoder and Chen to generate encoding data that can be efficiently decoded and to protect against channel noise. Ans. 6-7 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 5, 43); Final Act. 10 (citing Larsson ¶ 31). Moreover, we agree that the Examiner has set forth sufficient “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of error. IV. Appellant’s Fourth Reason Claim 1 is Patentable The Examiner finds Larsson teaches a decoder and protecting against channel noise. Ans. 6-8 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 5, 43). Appellant argues Larsson is non-analogous art because Larsson is concerned with encoding data to be transmitted in a communication system and is not in the field of audio encoders. Appeal Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 7-9. We disagree with Appellant. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even Appeal 2021-001491 Application 15/573,866 6 if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In determining the field of endeavor, we look to the written description and claims, including the structure and function of the invention. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. In order for a reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to the problem, it “logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Therefore, we compare the present case’s claims and written description with Larsson. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. Here, a broad approach should be taken to determine the appropriate scope of the field of endeavor encoding. Spec. 1:4-6. Similarly, Larsson teaches a decoder and protecting against channel noise. Ans. 6-8 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 5, 43); Final Act. 9 (citing Larsson ¶¶ 32, 57). Because Larsson is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claims, we need not determine whether Larsson is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Therefore, Appellant does not persuade us of error. Appellant does not argue claims 2-15 and 17 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 7- 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 8, and 15; and (2) dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to Appeal 2021-001491 Application 15/573,866 7 make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-15, 17 103 Chen, Kim, Larsson 1-15, 17