Ex Parte Dusan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

14274544 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

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