Ex Parte ChenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201611239351 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111239,351 0913012005 Juin-Hwey Chen 26111 7590 02/01/2016 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 1875.6960004 9562 EXAMINER A YOTUNDE, AYODEJI 0 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/01/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WIN-HWEY CHEN Appeal2013-009937 Application 11/239,351 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals the Non-Final Rejection1 of claims 1-5 and 14--18 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Br. 10, 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJCTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 Appellant appeals a Non-Final Office Action (mailed November. 21, 2012), which was issued in response to Appellant's previous filing of an Appeal Brief (dated June 28, 2012). Appeal2013-009937 Application 11/239,351 Introduction The invention "is directed to a telephone equipped with multiple microphones that provides improved performance during operation of the telephone in a speaker-phone mode." Abstract. Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A telephone that provides improved echo cancellation performance, comprising: a receiver configured to receive a far-end audio signal comprising a voice component of a far-end user; a loudspeaker configured to convert the far-end audio signal into sound waves; a first microphone configured to pick up sound waves and output a first audio signal, the first audio signal including a first voice component associated with the voice of a near-end user and a second voice component associated with the voice of the far- end user; a second microphone configured to output a second audio signal; a voice activity detector (V AD) configured to process the first audio signal, the second audio signal and the far-end audio signal to generate output relating to at least one of (i) time intervals in which the first voice component is present in the first audio signal and (ii) time intervals in which the second voice component is present in the first audio signal; and an echo canceller configured to cancel the second voice component included in the first audio signal based on the output from the V AD to produce a third audio signal. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1--4 and 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 7,003,099 Bl; issued February 21, 2 Appeal2013-009937 Application 11/239,351 2006) in view of Valve (US 6,707,910 Bl; issued March 16, 2004) and further in view ofMarchok (US 2003/0091182 Al; published May 15, 2003). Non-Final Action 3-7. Claims 5 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Valve in view ofMarchok and further in view ofEgelmeers (US 7,058,185 Bl; issued June 6, 2006). Non-Final Action 7-9. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 21, 2013), the Examiner's Answer (mailed June 3, 2013), and Reply Brief (filed August 5, 2013) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions that the Examiner has erred. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief and adopt them as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or set aside in the analysis as follows. Independent Claim 1 Regarding independent claim 1, Appellant argues Valve fails to teach the voice activity detector ("V AD") because "nothing in Valve's disclosure describes 'time intervals in which the first voice component is present in 3 Appeal2013-009937 Application 11/239,351 the first audio signal"' and Valve has "no description of time intervals at all." Reply Brief2. We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds that Valve's VAD "detects a double-talk situation if the near-end speech activity detector (explained above) has detected speech and far-end speech activity detector 6 has simultaneously detected speech" and thus relates "to at least one of (i) time intervals in which the first voice component is present in the first audio signal and (ii) time intervals in which the second voice component is present in the first audio signal." Non-Final Action 4 (citing Valve Figure 2, item 18, and column 7, 1. 59 - column 8, 1. 1 ); see also Answer 3. Although no explicit "time interval" is disclosed in Valve, the Examiner has identified an occurrence in which Valve's V AD produces output during near-end speech activity (that is, when the near-end user is speaking), corresponding to a time interval in which the claimed "first voice component is present in the first audio signal" because, as claimed by Appellant, the first voice component is "associated with the voice of a near- end user." Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error and therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as independent claim 14, and claims 5 and 18 not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Brief 14--15. Dependent Claim 2 Regarding claim 2, Appellant argues Valve expressly states that "'powdoa' is defined to be 'the strength of the concerned fdoa-component"' and the variable "fdoa" is the "far-end arrival direction vector estimate." 4 Appeal2013-009937 Application 11/239,351 Reply Brief 4 (citing Valve column 5, lines 4 7, 60). The Examiner finds that the equation for powdoa "suggests that powdoa represents the power ratio between the two audio signals." Answer 5. We find Appellant's arguments persuasive and disagree with the Examiner's findings. While the Examiner correctly finds that the equation for powdoa includes the ratio "Pow/Powmax," "for which Pow is a spectrum peak power and Powmax is the so far highest power" (Answer 5 (citing Valve column 6, line 64- column 7, lines 2)), the spectrum powers detected by Valve are with respect to estimating the direction of a far-end arrival signal (see Valve column 7, lines 21-22). Thus Valve does not appear to suggest detecting a power ratio between Appellant's claimed first and second audio signals, because the power ratio is detected with respect to only far-end signals. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 2, as well as claim 15, commensurate in scope. Dependent Claim 3 Regarding claim 3, Appellant argues "it is unclear from either the text of the Examiner's Answer or from Marchok's FIG. 4 as to the analysis that led the Office to conclude the existence of the required equivalence between Marchok's Echo Cancellation Filter and the recited 'adaptive filter."' Reply Brief 6. We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds that "Marchok further shows an Echo Cancellation Filter (i.e.[,] adaptive filter) (Marchok, Fig. 4)." Answer 6. The Examiner additionally finds that Marchok's echo canceller "only adapts when NE [(near-end)] speech is absent." Answer 6 (quoting Marchok paragraph 31 ). Thus, Figure 4 and paragraph 31 of 5 Appeal2013-009937 Application 11/239,351 Marchok link the echo cancellation filter to a filter that "adapts." Additionally, Marchok at paragraph 48 states that "[a]n echo canceller is one such device that adapts to the impulse response of the near-end transmission facility." Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret Valve's Echo Cancellation Filter as an adaptive filter that adapts to an impulse response. We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive because the argument is conclusory.2 Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error and therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 3, as well as claims 4, 16, and 17 not separately argued with particularity. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION We exercise our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to newly reject dependent claims 2 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang, Valve, and Marchok. The combination of Zhang, Valve, and Marchok teaches or suggests the elements of independent claim 1. See our discussion above and the Examiner's relevant findings on pages 3--4 of the Answer, which we agree with and adopt as our own. The pertinent portion of claim 2 recites "wherein the processing of the first and second audio signals is based in part on detecting a power ratio between the first and second audio signals." Zhang teaches a power ratio "h(n)," in which the numerator corresponds to the signal power from the near-end talker, and the 2 See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case). 6 Appeal2013-009937 Application 11/239,351 denominator corresponds to total power including noise. According to Zhang, a large value for h(n) indicates the near-end voice is present, and a small value for h(n) indicates the near-end voice is not present. See Zhang column 8, lines 17-38. We find it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure a V AD to process signals, "wherein the processing of the first and second audio signals is based in part on detecting a power ratio between the first and second audio signals," in order to allow for improved signal detection. Such detection methods would have been merely the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 500 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Accordingly, we newly reject claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang, Valve, and Marchok. Dependent claim 15 has similar recitations and we newly reject that claim for similar reasons. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 14 and 16-18. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2 and 15. We newly reject claims 2 and 15. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides a "new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: 7 Appeal2013-009937 Application 11/239,351 ( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the exammer .... (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record .... No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation