Ex Parte Case

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 10, 2003

08771469 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ELIOT M. CASE
____________
Appeal No. 2001-1346
Application No. 08/771,469
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FLEMING, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-17, and 19. The appellant
appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention concerns editing an encoded audio signal.
Compressive encoding techniques have been developed to transmit digital audio data
on low bandwidth data networks or to store larger amounts of such data in small data
spaces. In particular, perceptual encoding operates by neither transmitting nor storing
Appeal No. 2001-1346 Page 2
Application No. 08/771,469
portions of audio data that might not be perceived by an end user. (Spec. at 2.)
Component audio, in contrast, retains all portions of a digital audio signal. (Id.)
While waveform editors exist for linear encoded, digital audio signals, the
appellant asserts that no graphical tools exist for directly editing perceptually encoded
audio data or component audio data. (Id.) Consequently, he explains, such audio data
must first be decoded to conventional high resolution audio for editing. (Id. at 2-3.) The
edited audio data must be then be encoded. (Id. at 3.)
In contrast, the appellant's invention provides a graphical interface for editing
perceptually encoded audio data or component audio data. (Id.) More specifically, the
invention comprises a receiver for receiving an encoded audio signal having a plurality
of frequency subbands. Control logic generates a spectral graph of the encoded audio
signal, the graph including an amplitude of each frequency subband as a function of
time. The control logic also allows a user to mark at least one selectable edit point of
the encoded audio signal via an input device. A display unit presents the spectral graph
including the marked edit point. (Id.)

Appeal No. 2001-1346 Page 3
Application No. 08/771,469
A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reading the following
claim:
1. A graphic interface system for direct editing of a subband
encoded audio signal having a plurality of frequency subbands, the
system comprising:
a receiver for receiving the subband encoded audio signal;
control logic operative to generate a spectral graph of the subband
encoded audio signal, the spectral graph including an amplitude of each
of the plurality of frequency subbands of the subband encoded audio
signal as a function of time, and to mark at least one selectable edit point
of the subband encoded audio signal, wherein the at least one selectable
edit point includes an amplitude of any one of the plurality of frequency
subbands of the subband encoded audio signal at a selected time;
a display unit for displaying the spectral graph and the at least one
selectable edit point; and
an input device for selecting the at least one selectable edit point.
Claims 1, 2, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
NuWAVE User's Manual Version 1.0 ("NuWave") (Aug. 21, 1996) in view of Syntrillium
Software Corp., Cool Edit 1.51 software ("Cool Edit")
(1992-95) and M. Alexander Broadhead and Charles B. Owen ("Broadhead"), Direct
Manipulation of MPEG Compressed Digital Audio, ACM Multimedia 95 - Electronic
Proceedings (Nov. 5-9, 1995). Claim 3 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over
NuWave in view of Cool Edit and Broadhead further in view of Karkheinz Brandenburg
et al., ("Brandenberg"), ISO-MPEG Audio: A Generic Standard for Coding of High-
Appeal No. 2001-1346 Page 4
Application No. 08/771,469
Quality Digital Audio, J. Audio Eng. Soc'y, vol. 42, no. 10, 780-92 (Oct. 1994).
Claims 5, 7, and 9 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over NuWave in view of
Cool Edit and Broadhead further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,718,097 ("Uenoyama").
Claims 10-12 and 14-16 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over NuWave in view
of Cool Edit, Broadhead, and Uenoyama further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,544,248
("Date"). Claim 13 stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over NuWave in view of
Cool Edit, Broadhead, Uenoyama, and Date further in view of U.S. Patent No.
4,939,782 ("Gambarcuta").
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. Admitting that "NuWave does not
disclose . . . direct editing of encoded data [or] . . . a spectrum display with editing
points," (Examiner's Answer at 4), the examiner makes the following assertions.
Cool Edit teaches a method of displaying the spectrum of frequency band
amplitudes and edit points in the examiner marked figure 1. The edit
points are points in time, depicted as a line on the time vs [sic] frequency
plot in figure 1. A division into discrete frequency bands is inherent in a
digital spectrum analysis. The amplitude values are depicted along that
line by different colors. Each edit point thus has a plurality of frequency
band amplitudes associated with it, depicted by the colors along the edit
point line. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to use this type of display in any audio editing
system, because it allows one to see which frequencies are prevalent as
discussed in the "Spectral Viewing: section of Cool Edit.
Appeal No. 2001-1346 Page 5
Application No. 08/771,469
(Id.) The appellant argues, "the spectral graph of the Cool Edit reference does not
include an amplitude of each of the plurality of frequency subbands of a subband
encoded audio signal as a function of time. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 9.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"control logic operative to generate a spectral graph of the subband encoded audio
signal, the spectral graph including an amplitude of each of the plurality of frequency
subbands of the subband encoded audio signal as a function of time. . . ." Similarly,
independent claim 17 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "computer
readable instructions recorded on the storage medium, the instructions operative to
generate a spectral graph of the subband encoded audio signal received by the
receiver, the spectral graph including an amplitude of each one of the plurality of
frequency subbands of the subband encoded audio signal as a function of time. . . ."
Appeal No. 2001-1346 Page 6
Application No. 08/771,469
Giving the independent claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations
require generating a spectral graph including an amplitude of each one of a plurality of
frequency subbands of a subband encoded audio signal as a function of time.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject
matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26
USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, although Cool Edit "will display waveforms by the by their [sic] frequency
components," such that "[t]he more abundant a frequency is, the brighter the color
displayed will be," the examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the frequency
components are generated as a function of time. We will not "resort to speculation," In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), as to such a
Appeal No. 2001-1346 Page 7
Application No. 08/771,469
function. He further fails to allege, let alone show, that the other references cure the
deficiency of NuWave and Cool Edit. Absent a teaching or suggestion of generating a
spectral graph including an amplitude of each one of a plurality of frequency subbands
of a subband encoded audio signal as a function of time, the examiner fails to present a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 1; of
claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9-16, which depends therefrom; of claim 17; and of claim 19,
which depends therefrom.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-17, and 19 under § 103(a) are
reversed.
Appeal No. 2001-1346 Page 8
Application No. 08/771,469
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-1346 Page 9
Application No. 08/771,469
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC
LAW DEPT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
1801 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 3800
DENVER , CO 80202