Ex Parte Chen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2016

11239351 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

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