Ex Parte Dusan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201814274544 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/274,544 05/09/2014 Sorin V. Dusan 45217 7590 06/04/2018 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/ APPLE INC. Attn: IP Docketing P.O. Box 7037 Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 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. 4860P22066 2229 EXAMINER PATEL, SHREYANS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): FIP _Group@bstz.com PTO.MAIL@BSTZPTO.COM PTO.MAIL@BSTZ.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SORIN V. DUSAN, ARAM M. LINDAHL, ALEXANDER KANARIS, and V ASU IYENGAR Appeal2017-009380 Application 14/274,544 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID J. CUTITT A II, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-24, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. Technology The application relates to "the use of noise reduction with ... headsets ... which make use of multiple microphones." Spec. ,r 5. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-009380 Application 14/274,544 Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 1. An electronic system for audio noise processing and for noise reduction comprising: a first noise estimator to process a first audio signal from a voice beamformer, and generate a first noise estimate, wherein the voice beamformer generates the first audio signal by beamforming audio signals from a first audio pick-up channel and a second audio pick-up channel; a second noise estimator to process the first audio signal and a second audio signal from a noise beamformer, in parallel with the first noise estimator, and generate a second noise estimate, wherein the noise beamformer generates the second audio signal by beamforming audio signals from the first audio pick-up channel and the second audio pick-up channel, wherein the first and second audio signals include frequencies in a first frequency region and a second frequency region, wherein the first frequency region is lower in frequency than the second frequency region; a selector to receive the first and second noise estimates, and to select an output noise estimate being one of the first or second noise estimates, wherein the selector selects as the output noise estimate a) the second noise estimate when a frequency of the first and second audio signals is in the first frequency region, and b) the first noise estimate when the frequency of the first and second audio signals is in the second frequency region; an attenuator to attenuate the first audio signal in accordance with the output noise estimate. Rejections Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-19, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Iyengar et al. (US 2 Appeal2017-009380 Application 14/274,544 2013/0332157 Al; Dec. 12, 2013) and Visser et al. (US 2010/0017205 Al; Jan. 21, 2010). Final Act. 2-13. Claims 8, 12, 20, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Iyengar, Visser, and Jelinek (US 2005/0143989 Al; June 30, 2005). Final Act. 13-16. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding I yen gar teaches or suggests "the selector selects as the output noise estimate a) the second noise estimate when a frequency of the first and second audio signals is in the first frequency region, and b) the first noise estimate when the frequency of the first and second audio signals is in the second frequency region," as recited in claim 1 ? ANALYSIS Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-19, and 21-23 Claim 1 recites "the selector selects as the output noise estimate a) the second noise estimate when a frequency of the first and second audio signals is in the first frequency region, and b) the first noise estimate when the frequency of the first and second audio signals is in the second frequency region." Independent claim 13 recites commensurate limitations. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner relies on paragraphs 201-208 of Visser for teaching or suggesting "the selector selects as the output noise estimate," as claimed, specifically finding in Visser, a "mode select signal selects a particular frequency sub bands from the sets of noise sub band power estimates generated by the first and second noise sub band power estimates." Final Act. 4 ( emphasis omitted). 3 Appeal2017-009380 Application 14/274,544 Appellants argue that "while the equalizer EQ 100 in Visser selects among different sets of subband signals, according to the state mode select signal S80 to generate the subband power estimates, that selection is not based on the frequency of the audio signals." App. Br. 13. In the Answer, the Examiner relies on Figure 3 of Visser for teaching or suggesting that "[h ]igh frequency components of [a] speech signal have less energy than corresponding components of the noise signal, resulting in a masking of the high-frequency speech bands." Ans. 19. The Examiner finds "Fig. 3 represents power vs frequency graph where the speech power spectrum signal is divided by a noise power. The dashed line of noise power represents the division of the two frequency region." Id. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that Visser, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a selector selecting a particular output noise estimate when the frequency is in a particular frequency region. For example, the Examiner has not explained sufficiently how "a natural speech power roll-off' at high frequencies relates to selecting a noise estimate as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, and their dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, 14--19, and 21-23. Claims 8, 12, 20, and 24 Claims 8, 12, 20, and 24 also variously depend from independent claims 1 and 13. The Examiner does not rely on Jelinek to cure the deficiency of the obviousness rejection discussed above. See Ans. 13-16. Accordingly, we likewise do not sustain the obviousness rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth above. 4 Appeal2017-009380 Application 14/274,544 DECISION For the reasons above, we reverse the decision rejecting claims 1-24. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation