Ex Parte Den Brinker

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2007

10046632 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALBERTUS CORNELIS DEN BRINKER
____________

Appeal 2007-3257
Application 10/046,632
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: September 11, 2007
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-17, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2007-3257
Application 10/046,632

2
Appellant’s invention relates to a parametric encoder and a method for
encoding an audio or speech signal into sinusoidal code data (Specification
1). According to Appellant, improvements to a known parametric encoder
embodied in the claimed subject matter provide for establishing a required
time-frequency resolution trade-off without scattering of components over
various scales and/or merging the data retrieved at different scales
(Specification 2). The claimed invention requires a segmentation unit to
carry out a frequency-warping operation in order to transform the output
samples onto a frequency-warped domain and to provide a post-processing
filter for re-mapping the sinusoidal code data output from the sinusoidal
estimation unit to the original frequency domain of the input signal (id.).
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject mater and reads as
follows:
1. A parametric encoder for encoding an audio or speech
signals s into sinusoidal code data, comprising:

a segmentation unit (120) for segmenting said signal s into at
least one single scale segment xm(n) with m = 1 . . . M and for
outputting the samples xm(0), . . . , xm(L-1) of said segment xm(n); and

a sinusoidal estimation unit (140) for estimating the sinusoidal
code data respresenting said segment xm(n) from the received samples
xm(0), . . . , x m(L-1); characterized in that

the segmentation unit (120) is further embodied for carrying out
a frequency-warping operation in order to transform the output
samples x m(0), . . . , xm(L-1) onto a frequency-warped domain; and

a post-processing filter (160) is provided for re-mapping said
sinusoidal data output from the sinusoidal estimation unit (140) to an
original frequency domain of the signals.
Appeal 2007-3257
Application 10/046,632

3
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Oppenheim, “Computation of Spectra with Unequal Resolution Using
the Fast Fourier Transform,” Proc. IEEE, Feb. 1971, pp. 299-301.

Kleijn, “Speech Coding and Synthesis,” Elsevier Science, 1995, pp.
36-39.

Elder, “Audio Coding Using a Psychoacoustic Pre- and Post-Filter,”
Proceedings ICASSP, 2000, pp. 881-884.

Härmä, “Frequency-Warped Signal Processing for Audio
Applications,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 48, No. 11, Nov. 2000, pp. 1011-
1031.

Claims 1-3 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elder and Kleijn.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elder, Kleijn, and Härmä.
Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elder, Kleijn, Härmä, and Oppenheim.
We make reference to the Brief and Answer for the respective
positions of Appellant and the Examiner.
We affirm.

THE ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant focuses on the
coding sequence described in Kleijn and alleges that such sinusoidal code is
not the same as the claimed estimating the sinusoidal code data (Br. 9).
Appeal 2007-3257
Application 10/046,632

4
Appellant further argues that the transform function in Kleijn is not an
algorithmic estimation nor its taking of a fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
relates to estimating sinusoidal code data (Br. 9-10). Therefore, the issue
turns on whether the combination of Elder and Kleijn teaches or suggests the
claimed subject matter related to estimating the sinusoidal code data.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue at hand
and are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Kleijn generally relates to parametric coders for speech signal
processing (P. 36, § 8) and specifically, describes sinusoidal coders as a
natural processing method when the spectrum for voice speech is considered
(P. 37, § 8.2).
2. Kleijn further describes the coding for windowed signals which
obtains the complex spectrum of the signal by means of a fast Fourier
Transform (FFT). The spectrum is separated into magnitude and phase
spectra. The peaks in the magnitude spectrum are determined, and the rest
of the spectrum is effectively set to zero. The magnitudes, the phases, and
the frequencies of this sparse spectrum are quantized and their indices are
transmitted to the decoder (P. 37, § 8.2, 3rd ¶).
3. Appellant’s Specification describes that the “estimation”
performed by the sinusoidal estimation unit on the samples “may be done by
carrying out a Fourier transformation on said frequency-warped samples and
subsequent, for instance, peak picking.” (Specification 4:31 through 5:2).
4. Appellant does not dispute the teachings of Elder, as asserted
by the Examiner, and merely presents arguments directed to the teachings of
Appeal 2007-3257
Application 10/046,632

5
Kleijn (Br. 8-10). As conceded by Appellant, Elder describes the claimed
invention, except for the sinusoidal estimation unit for estimating the
sinusoidal code data representing the segments from the received samples
(Br. 8).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not
only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
In identifying a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant field to combine the prior art teachings, the Examiner
must show some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Upon a review of the instant disclosure, we find that Appellant’s
sinusoidal estimation unit performs the same function of the sinusoidal
coders of Kleijn (FF 2 & 3). In that regard, we agree with the Examiner
(Answer 11) that based on the description of Appellant’s sinusoidal
Appeal 2007-3257
Application 10/046,632

6
estimation unit in the Specification (FF 3), the sinusoidal coder of Kleijn
teaches the claimed sinusoidal estimation.
We remain unconvinced by Appellant’s argument that the applied
prior art must also show that the transform is an algorithmic estimation, or
that the resulting spectrum is an estimation (Br. 9). We note that the claims
neither recite an algorithmic estimation nor include limitations that require
an “algorithmic transformation.” Additionally, we disagree with Appellant
that the taking of a fast Fourier Transform of Kleijn relates to sinusoidal
coding and not the claimed estimating sinusoidal code (Br. 10), since
Appellant’s own disclosure provides for the same fast Fourier Transform as
the way of carrying out the estimation (FF 3). Therefore, as broadly as
claimed and consistent with the Specification, Appellant’s recited sinusoidal
estimation unit reads on the coder of Kleijn. In other words, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have used the encoder of Elder in combination with the
sinusoidal estimation unit taught by Kleijn for benefiting from its natural
processing of the spectrum for voiced speech (FF 1).1
On the record before us, it follows that in this case Appellant has not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting Claim 1 under the § 103(a)
rejection. Since Appellant’s arguments focus on the patentability of claim 1
without addressing the various rejections of the remaining claims (Br. 10-
11), claims 2-17 fall with claim 1.

1 Although not discussed by the Examiner, we note that the background of
the invention in Figure 5 also discloses a sinusoidal estimation unit 140’ as a
known component in a parametric encoder (Specification 1).
Appeal 2007-3257
Application 10/046,632

7
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the
Examiner has erred in rejecting the claims or the rejection is not supported
by a legally sufficient basis for holding that the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to the skilled artisan all of the recited
method steps. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
1-3 and 9-12 over Elder and Kleijn, of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 17
over Elder, Kleijn, and Härmä, and of claims 6 and 15 over Elder, Kleijn,
Härmä, and Oppenheim.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P. O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510