Ex Parte Briand et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2017

13981035 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2017)

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.
13/981,035 07/22/2013 Manuel Briand 1009-0630 / P33486 US2 9983
7590
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
DORVIL, RICHEMOND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2017 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANUEL BRIAND, and TOMAS JANSSON
Appeal 2017-006158
Application 13/981,035
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. EVANS and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 19—25 and 28—34, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-006158
Application 13/981,035
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to audio
signal processing. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 19 is exemplary:
19. A method for determining an inter-channel time
difference of a multi-channel audio signal having at least two
channels, wherein said method comprises the steps of:
determining a set of local maxima of a cross-correlation
function involving at least two different channels of the multi­
channel audio signal for positive and negative time-lags, where
each local maximum is associated with a corresponding
timelag;
selecting, from the set of local maxima, a local maximum
for positive time-lags as a positive time-lag inter-channel
correlation candidate and a local maximum for negative time-
lags is selected as a negative time-lag inter-channel correlation
candidate;
evaluating, when the absolute value of a difference in
amplitude between the interchannel correlation candidates is
smaller than a first threshold, whether there is an energy-
dominant channel; and
identifying, when there is an energy-dominant channel,
the sign of the inter-channel time difference and extracting a
current value of the inter-channel time difference based on
either the time-lag corresponding to the positive time-lag inter­
channel correlation candidate or the time-lag corresponding to
the negative time-lag interchannel correlation candidate; and
outputting an encoded audio signal based on encoding
the multi-channel audio signal, said encoding including
aligning channel signals of the multi-channel audio signal for
down-mixing of the multi-channel audio signal, according to
the extracted values of the inter-channel time difference.
2
Appeal 2017-006158
Application 13/981,035
Rejection
Claims 19—25 and 28—34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because they are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding claims 19—25 and 28—34 are
directed to patent ineligible matter. See App. Br. 7—15; Reply Br. 2—5.
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides “[wjhoever invents or
discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. That provision‘“contains an important implicit
exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable.’” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLSBankInt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354
(2014) (quoting Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). According to the Supreme Court:
[W]e set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from
those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
one of those patent-ineligible concepts. ... If so, we then ask,
“[wjhat else is there in the claims before us?” ... To answer
that question, we consider the elements of each claim both
individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine
whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the
claim” into a patent-eligible application. . . . We have
described step two of this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive
3
Appeal 2017-006158
Application 13/981,035
concept’” —i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
itself.”
Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The Federal Circuit has described the Alice step-one inquiry as
looking at the “focus” of the claims, their “character as a whole,” and
the Alice step-two inquiry as looking more precisely at what the claim
elements add—whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the
application of the ineligible matter to which the claim is directed. See
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335—36 (Fed.
Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (2014), the
Federal Circuit determines the claims satisfy Alice step two because “the
claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.”
DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. As a result, the DDR court holds the
claims are patent eligible regardless of whether the claims are characterized
as an abstract idea under Alice step one. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at
1257.
Similar to the claims in DDR, the claims here are necessarily rooted in
audio signal processing technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of signal processing. See claims 19—25 and
28—34; see also Spec. 1—2; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. As a result,
4
Appeal 2017-006158
Application 13/981,035
the claims are patent eligible regardless of whether they are characterized as
an abstract idea under Alice step one. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257.
In particular, the claims address the problem of inaccurately
determining an inter-channel time difference of a multi-channel audio signal
during audio signal processing. See claims 19—25 and 28—34; see also Spec.
1—2. To that end, the claims provide an improved method and system for
determining an inter-channel time difference of a multi-channel audio signal.
See claims 19—25 and 28—34. For example, independent claim 19 recites a
method comprising “determining a set of local maxima of a cross-correlation
function . . . ; selecting ... a local maximum for positive time-lags . . . and a
local maximum for negative time-lags . . . ; evaluating . . . whether there is
an energy-dominant channel; identifying . . . the sign of the inter-channel
time difference and extracting a current value of the inter-channel time
difference . . . ; and . . . encoding the multi-channel audio signal. . .
including aligning channel signals of the multi-channel audio signal for
down-mixing of the multi-channel audio signal. . . .” Claim 19.
Independent claim 28 is a system claim reciting similar functions. See claim
28. Contrary to the detailed signal processing steps discussed above, the
Examiner incorrectly asserts that the claims constitute merely mathematical
calculations. (Ans. 5).
Instead of adhering to the conventional way of audio signal
processing, the claims provide an improved method and system of
determining an inter-channel time difference of a multi-channel audio signal.
See claims 19—25 and 28—34; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258—59.
Therefore, similar to the claims of DDR and contrary to the Examiner’s
assertion (Ans. 5), “[w]hen the limitations of [this invention] are taken
5
Appeal 2017-006158
Application 13/981,035
together[], the claims recite an invention that is not merely the routine or
conventional use of’ general-purpose electronic circuitry. See claims 19—25
and 28—34; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259.
Finally, “[i]t is also clear that the claims at issue do not attempt to
preempt every application of the idea of’ determining an inter-channel time
difference of a multi-channel audio signal. “Rather, they recite a specific
way” based on detailed determining, selecting, evaluating, identifying, and
encoding steps discussed above. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259. As a
result, the claims include “additional features” that ensure the claims are
“more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].” Id.
(citing Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357). In short, “the claimed solution amounts to
an inventive concept for resolving this particular” audio signal processing
problem, rendering the claims patent eligible. Id.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19—25 and
28-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19—25 and 28—34
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
REVERSED
6