Ex parte Aylward

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 22, 2000

08254643 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2000)

This appeal was set for oral hearing on Wednesday,1
November 15, 2000. Appellant was informed by Administrator
Craig Feinberg on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 that there was no
need for appellant's representative to attend the oral hearing
since the panel that was assigned to the hearing had decided
to reverse all rejections on appeal.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte J. RICHARD AYLWARD
_____________
Appeal No. 1997-3182
Application 08/254,643
______________
ON BRIEF1
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 8, 15, 16, 21, 22 and 27. The
Appeal No. 1997-3182
Application 08/254,643
2
examiner has objected to claims 2 through 7, 9 through 14, 17
through 20, 23 through 26, 28 and 29 as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but indicated their allowability if
rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of
the base claim and any intervening claims.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system for extracting a bass signal from left and
right audio input signals of a stereo signal, said system
comprising:
a differencing circuit generating a difference mode
signal from the left and right audio input signals;
a detector circuit generating a first coefficient of
proportionality that is a function of the relative phase of
the left and right input signals; and
a first multiplier circuit multiplying the first
coefficient of proportionality times the difference mode
signal to produce a modified difference mode signal, wherein
the modified difference mode signal is used to generate the
bass signal.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa) 4,933,768 June 12,
1990
Fosgate WO 91/19407 Dec. 12, 1991
Robinson 1,175,362 Oct. 2,
1984
(Canadian Patent)
Appeal No. 1997-3182
Application 08/254,643
3
IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms,
405 (3d ed., New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1984).
Claims 1, 8, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Robinson. Claims 15, 16 and
27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon the combination of
teachings of Robinson in view of Ishikawa and Fosgate as to
claim 15 and the more limited combination to Robinson and
Fosgate as to claims 16 and 27.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the various briefs, the
supplemental examiner's answer mailed on May 9, 2000, which
appears to supersede the answer's answer mailed on November
13, 1996, and the intervening communications from the
examiner.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection of independent claims 1 and 21
on appeal essentially for the reasons set forth by appellant
in the brief and the reply brief. As such, we therefore
reverse the rejection of claims 8 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the remaining
Appeal No. 1997-3182
Application 08/254,643
4
claims on appeal.
Claim 1 on appeal recites in-part "a detector circuit
generating a first coefficient of proportionality that is a
function of the relative phase of the left and right input
signals." Independent claim 21 correspondingly recites "a
Appeal No. 1997-3182
Application 08/254,643
5
detector circuit generating an output signal that is a
function of the relative phase information contained in the
first and second input signals." Appellant rightly contests
the inability of Robinson to anticipate the subject matter of
each of these claims on appeal in the various briefs on
appeal.
Our study of Robinson lead us to agree with appellant's
remarks at pages 8 and 9 of the brief:
The reference [Robinson] discloses delaying the
difference signal A-B with respect to the sum signal
A+B. There is no disclosure in the reference of any
detector circuit generating a first coefficient of
proportionality that is a function of the relative
phase of the left and right input signals
corresponding to the A and the B signals in the
reference. There is no disclosure whatsoever that
the coefficient G is a function of the relative1
phase of the left and right input signals or the
relative phase of the A+B and A-B signals if these
be treated as the first and second signals called
for by claim 21.
Modifier network 30 may introduce a time delay
"with a phase shift which varies in the manner as
shown with curve 52 in Fig. 2O that is a function of
the frequency of the difference signal A-B, but that
is not a disclosure of "a detector circuit
generating a first coefficient of proportionality
that is a function of the relative phase of the left
and right input signals" called for by claims 1 and
8 or "a detector circuit generating an output signal
that is a function of the relative phase information
contained in the first and second input signals"
Appeal No. 1997-3182
Application 08/254,643
6
called for by claims 21 and 22.
Similarly, we also agree with appellant's observations
with respect to Robinson as noted at the bottom of page 5 of
the reply brief:
The reference discloses, "The difference signal
A-B is applied to a modifier network 30 having a
transfer function G to produce an audio signals V2 4
on output line 32." Page 8, lines 5-7. There is no
disclosure whatsoever that the multiplier G is "a2
first coefficient of proportionality that is a
function of the relative phase of the left [or
first] and right
[or second] input signals."
Although we agree with the examiner's view expressed in
the answer that the difference circuit Figure 2 corresponds to
the differencing circuit generating a difference mode signal
from the left and right audio input signals as set forth in
independent claims 1 and 21 on appeal, we part company with
the examiner's remaining views expressed with respect to the
difference modifier circuit 30 in the answer. The just quoted
portions of the brief and reply brief correctly reflect our
understanding of the teachings of the reference with respect
to the difference modifier circuit 30 and its corresponding
sum modifier circuit 26 and the respective transfer functions
Appeal No. 1997-3182
Application 08/254,643
7
G and G . The examiner's rejection mistakenly attributes2 1
features of the sum modifier circuit 26 to the difference
modifier circuit 30 in the answer. Figure 1 contains circuits
which delay the difference (A-B) signals on line 24 and the
sum (A+B) signals on line 20 relative to each other, but not
with respect to the left and right input signals per se as
required by the language of the detector circuit quoted above
in each independent claim 1 and 21 on appeal. At most, any
phase shift attributed to the difference signal A-B would not
be equal or equivalent to, within 35 U.S.C. § 102, the
"relative phase" of the input signals, per se as claimed. As
such, the claimed first multiplier circuit of claim 1 and the
multiplier circuit of claim 21 on appeal also cannot be met by
the teachings and showings associated with Figure 1 of
Robinson.
Because we have reversed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
102 of independent claims 1 and 21 on appeal, we also reverse
the rejection of their respective dependent claims 8 and 22.
Furthermore, we reverse the respective rejections of claims
15, 16 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 even in light of the
Appeal No. 1997-3182
Application 08/254,643
8
additional teachings of Fosgate and Ishikawa.
Appeal No. 1997-3182
Application 08/254,643
9
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's rejections of
various claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are all
reversed. Therefore, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
)
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-3182
Application 08/254,643
10
CHARLES HIEKEN
FISH & RICHARDSON
225 FRANKLIN STREET
BOSTON, MA 02110-2804