Armen Mkrtchyan

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

13726775 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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.
13/726,775 12/26/2012 Armen Mkrtchyan 45WE-029011 1367
124910 7590 10/31/2019
ESPLIN & ASSOCIATES
c/o DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
5411 Avenida Encinas
Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
EXAMINER
UHLIR, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2019 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):
docketing@esplin.legal
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARMEN MKRTCHYAN

Appeal 2018-004403
Application 13/726,775
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before DONNA M. PRAISS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 8–10, 12–15, 18, 19, and 21. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 In this Decision we refer to the Specification filed Dec. 26, 2012 (“Spec.”),
the Final Office Action dated May 9, 2017 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Oct. 9, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Jan. 23,
2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Mar. 23, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant is The Walt Disney Company, which is identified
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-004403
Application 13/726,775

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to analyzing audio input to discern musical notes
and, more particularly, to a method, system, and program product for
receiving, storing, and identifying an analog note unit input and providing a
result output to a user responsive to identifying the analog note unit. Spec.
Title, ¶¶ 4–6. According to the Specification, a music source provides a
detectable analog note unit(s) which is (are) saved or stored into memory
and characteristics of the note unit, for example the frequency of the
captured audio sample, may be compared with one or more reference audio
samples, and an output may report a match between the captured note unit
and a reference or expected note unit to a display device. Id. ¶¶ 20–26.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (disputed
limitation italicized).
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a series of analog note units at an information
handling device;
storing note unit information corresponding to each
analog note unit in the series of analog note units in a memory
device of the information handling device, wherein the note unit
information comprises a frequency of each analog note unit;
identifying beginning and end points of each analog note
unit;
comparing frequency data corresponding to an analog
waveform of a received analog note unit to frequency data
corresponding to an analog waveform of a plurality of
previously stored notes, wherein the comparing comprises
matching the frequency data corresponding to an analog
waveform of a received analog note unit to the frequency data
Appeal 2018-004403
Application 13/726,775

3
corresponding to an analog waveform of one of the plurality of
previously stored notes on a note unit-per-note unit basis;
identifying each analog note unit in the series of analog
note units from among the plurality of previously stored notes
using the note unit information, wherein the plurality of
previously stored note comprise a plurality of stock note units;
and
providing a note transcription result output to a user
responsive to identifying each analog note unit, wherein the
note transcription result comprises a series of notes.
Claims 12 and 21 are the other independent claims in this appeal and are
directed to a system and a program product, respectively. Appeal Br. 27–30
(Claims Appendix).
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
argued claims in light of the case law presented in this Appeal and the
positions of both Appellant and the Examiner, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections maintained in this appeal.3
Each rejection is addressed below.

3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 3–5 and 13–15 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) for being indefinite. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2018-004403
Application 13/726,775

4
Rejection 1: Anticipation by Somani
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 8, 9, 12–14, 18, 19, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Somani4 for the reasons provided on pages
3–5 of the Final Action.
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of claims 1–4, 8,
9, 12–14, 18, 19, and 21. Appeal Br. 18–20. Therefore, claims 2–4, 8, 9,
12–14, 18, 19, and 21 stand or fall with independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because “Somani does not
compare frequency data corresponding to an analog waveform of a received
analog note unit” as required by each of independent claims 1, 12, and 21
because “Somani specifically converts the input signal to a digital signal,
thereby resulting in a digital note signal.” Appeal Br. 19. According to
Appellant, Somani converts a note to a digital note by performing a Fast
Fourier Transform that results in the loss of “frequency data corresponding
to an analog waveform” as recited in claim 1. Id. (citing Somani 11:50–58,
13:1–14). Appellant also argues that Somani’s comparison, therefore, “is not
to a plurality of previously stored notes comprising a plurality of stock note
units” because Somani “compares the received notes to a retrieved music.”
Id. at 19–20 (citing Somani 9:22–43).
The Examiner responds that the claims do not require a frequency of a
received analog waveform to be compared, but, rather, frequency data
corresponding to a received analog waveform to be compared. Ans. 2. The
Examiner finds that a digital representation of an analog signal includes

4 US 7,323,629 B2, issued Jan. 29, 2008.
Appeal 2018-004403
Application 13/726,775

5
characteristics such as frequency which are related to and, therefore,
correspond to, the analog signal. Id. at 2–3. The Examiner finds that
Somani demonstrates the frequency spectrum of an analog note and its
corresponding digital representation in Figure 5E. Id. at 3. The Examiner
also finds that Somani discloses comparing features of a played note to
frequency patterns comprising frequency data observed for the same note.
Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that Somani compares frequency data of
a digital representation which corresponds to related frequency data of the
represented analog waveform. Id. The Examiner finds that digital
representation of an analog waveform has frequency characteristics that
correspond with the analog waveform. Id. at 9. The Examiner also finds
that Somani identifies each analog note unit from among the plurality of
previously stored notes because Somani compares a received note to each of
a plurality of stock note units that are individually stored in a reference
database. Id. at 9–12 (citing Somani 8:49–9:9, 13:23–38, 14:8–11).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that “corresponding to” means
“information characterizing the analog note.” Reply Br. 19 (quoting Spec.
¶ 16). Appellant also quotes excerpts from paragraph 21 in the Specification
regarding analyzing characteristics of the note unit and comparing to stored
note unit characteristic(s). Id. at 20. Appellant asserts that this excludes
“conversion of the note to a digital signal and then transferring the digital
note signals from a time domain to a frequency domain as taught by
Somani.” Id. at 20 (citing Ans. 4–6). According to Appellant, Somani’s
conversion “results in the loss of ‘frequency data corresponding to an analog
waveform.’” Id. at 21 (quoting claim 1). Appellant argues that Somani
Appeal 2018-004403
Application 13/726,775

6
compares received notes to a retrieved music, which is not a “plurality of
stock note units” as recited in claim 1. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as anticipated by Somani
because Appellant does not adequately explain why “corresponding to”
precludes correspondence with a digital representation. Appellant directs us
to paragraphs 16 and 21 of the Specification for the proper construction of
claim 1, however, nothing in those portions of the Specification limit the
manner of correspondence or the form of the “information characterizing the
analog note.” Spec. ¶ 16. We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that Somani does not compare a received note to a “plurality of
stock note units” as required by claim 1 because the Examiner’s finding that
Somani compares a received note to each of a plurality of stock note units
that are individually stored in a reference database is supported by the
record. Ans. 9–12; Somani 8:49–9:9, 13:23–38, 14:8–11.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 8, 9,
12–14, 18, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Somani.

Appeal 2018-004403
Application 13/726,775

7
Rejection 2: Obviousness
The Examiner rejects claim 5, 10,5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Somani and Pillhofer6 for the reasons provided on
pages 6–7 of the Final Action.
Claim 5 indirectly depends from claim 1 and recites “providing a
visual indication of key placement on an instrument corresponding to the
identified analog note unit; and providing a visual indication of expected key
placement on the instrument for producing the expected note unit.”
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of claims 5, 10, and 15.
Appeal Br. 20–24. Therefore, claims 10 and 15 stand or fall with claim 5.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because “a visual
indication of key placement” or “expected key placement” as recited in
claim 5 would not result in “provid[ing] feedback as to a percentage value of
correctly played notes or graphical depictions” Appeal Br. 22. Appellant
also contends that the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of Somani
and Pillhofer because they are “directed to completely separate problems
and therefore are directed to completely separate solutions” and the
Examiner has not articulated a reason why a person skilled in the art would
have combined the references. Id. at 23. Finally, Appellant asserts that

5 Although claim 10 is not among the claims listed in the Examiner’s
statement of the rejection on page 6 of the Final Office Action, the rejection
of claim 10 is explained in the body of the rejection and Appellant
acknowledges claim 10 as part of the rejection with claims 5 and 15. Appeal
Br. 20 n.1.
6 US 8,785,757 B2, issued July 22, 2014.
Appeal 2018-004403
Application 13/726,775

8
Pillhofer does not cure the deficiencies of Somani discussed in connection
with the anticipation rejection. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the
rejection of claims 5, 10, and 15 for the reasons provided by the Examiner in
the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Somani
discloses the limitations of claim 1, from which claim 5 indirectly depends,
for the reasons discussed above in connection with the anticipation rejection.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s combination of Somani’s and
Pillhofer’s teachings lacks a reasonable basis. As the Examiner finds, both
Somani and Pillhofer provide feedback to a user based on a comparison
between played notes and expected played notes. Ans. 13–14 (citing
Somani 7:56–67, Fig. 4E; Pillhofer 1:40–47, 5:39–42). The Examiner’s
finding that Somani and Pillhofer both disclose providing feedback
regarding a user’s musical performance is supported by the record. The
Examiner’s findings (Final Act. 6–7) that Pillhofer teaches that offering an
assessment helps a user learn to play a musical instrument and that such as
assessment can be a percentage value of correctly played notes or a
graphical ranking are also supported by the record. Pillhofer 2:58–59, 4:29–
35. Therefore Somani and Pillhofer both relate to providing feedback to a
user regarding their musical performance and the Examiner’s combination of
the references is not conclusory as Appellant asserts (Appeal Br. 21; Reply
Br. 23), but, rather, supported by the record cited in this appeal.
The Examiner also finds that Pillhofer discloses providing visual
feedback regarding the notes played and whether the notes played are correct
Appeal 2018-004403
Application 13/726,775

9
or incorrect as required by claim 5. Final Act. 6 (citing Pillhofer 6:57–63).
This finding is supported by the record. Pillhofer 6:57–63. The Examiner
finds that Somani similarly describes providing assessment of the audio
input and comparing it to stored notes as part of a music tutor system. Ans.
17; Somani Abstr. (“The systems and methods may be used as part of a
music tutor system that receives a replayed note, identifies the played not,
and compares the played note with a reference note. An indication may be
given as to whether the played note matched the reference note.”).
Therefore, the combination of Somani and Pillhofer is supported by rational
underpinnings and discloses the disputed limitations of claim 5.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 10, and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8, 9, 12–
14, 18, 19, 21 102(b) Somani
1–4, 8, 9, 12–
14, 18, 19, 21

5, 10, 15 103(a) Somani, Pillhofer 5, 10, 15

Overall
Outcome
1–5, 8–10,
12–15, 18,
19, 21

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