Ex Parte Eidson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 28, 2004

09185248 (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is
not binding precedent of the Board
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte MARK E. EIDSON,
KARL H. MAURITZ and
PAUL S. GRYSKIEWICZ
______________
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-4, 10-12, 16, 19-21 and 23.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method to combine diversely encoded audio data
streams, comprising:
receiving a first audio data stream in a first perceptually
based format;
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
2
decoding the first audio data stream into a linear pulse
code modulated format;
obtaining a second audio data stream in a linear pulse code
modulated format; and
combining the decoded first audio data stream with the
second audio data stream, utilizing in part a linear pulse code
modulated mixer, for receipt by a CODEC.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Farhangi et al. (Farhangi) 5,647,008 July 8, 1997
Hinderks 5,706,335 Jan. 6, 1998
Alexander et al. (Alexander) 6,259,957 July 10, 2001
(filing date Apr. 4, 1997)
Bergher et al. (Bergher), "Dolby AC-3â„¢ and MPED-2 Audio Decoder
IC with 6-Channels Output," IEEE Transactions on Consumer
Electronics, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 567-574 (Aug. 1997).
Claims 1-4, 10-12, 16, 19-21 and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies
upon the collective teachings and suggestions of Farhangi in view
of Bergher, further in view of Hinderks and Alexander.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
3
OPINION
We affirm the rejection of all claims on appeal for the
reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer. We recognize
the examiner's initial statement of combining the teachings and
suggestions of four references as to independent claims 1 and 19
at pages 3-5 of the answer may be somewhat awkwardly stated or
viewed as somewhat disjointed and based upon combining bits and
pieces of prior art. On the other hand, we remain convinced of
the obviousness of the subject matter since the examiner provides
clarifying analyses as to his position in the Remarks section of
the answer beginning at page 8. With respect to these remarks,
the examiner's reasoning of combinability appears to us to be
better expressed in the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 of the
answer, which is repeated again in a paragraph bridging pages 10
and 11 of the answer. It is here that the overlapping nature of
the teachings and suggestions of the references relied upon is
better expressed by the examiner such as to at least present to
the reader, without considering the nature of the teachings and
suggestions of the references themselves, a more persuasive line
of reasoning of combinability. Therefore, we do not agree with
one of appellants' basic urgings that there is no motivation or
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
4
rationale of combinability and that the examiner has utilized
prohibited hindsight.
Appellants' arguments in the brief and reply brief appear to
continually urge that there is no teaching per se of linear pulse
code modulated formats or LPCM, the emphasis being upon the
absence of the word "linear" as expressly taught among the four
references relied upon by the examiner. The examiner essentially
acknowledges this with respect to the statement at the bottom of
page 8 of the answer at least with respect to Farhangi, but the
paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 and the other last noted
paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 offers persuasive lines of
reasoning that it would have been obvious for the artisan to have
used linear pulse code modulated formats as a common type format
since the collective teachings and showings of the references
clearly utilize mixing pulse code modulated (PCM) audio
information for output to CODECs. Appellants' brief and reply
brief do not argue the basic thrust of the examiner's position,
which appears to be that it would have been obvious to use LPCM
over the conventional PCM that is actually taught among the
references. From our detailed study of the references relied
upon, we agree with the examiner's views and conclude that there
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
5
is no patentable distinction in using LPCM over the actual PCM
formats actually taught among the references.
From our review of the appellants' specification there
appears to be no criticality as to the use of LPCM anyway. At
specification page 3, in the context of Figure 2, the decoding
operation is expressed in the terms of converting any inputted
digital audio information "into a raw format such as LPCM (block
202)." Thus, the LPCM format is suggested by appellants'
specification to have been known in the art. A similar approach
is taken with respect to the discussion at specification page 5
in the context of the block diagram circuit presented in Figure 3
of the specification as filed. Here, the data is decoded into "a
raw audio data stream (e.g., an audio data stream and LPCM
format)." Note the discussion at lines 8-10. The use of the
term "raw data" by the examiner in his rationale in the answer is
consistent with this disclosed language. The examiner has
persuasively shown to us that the applied prior art clearly
indicates that it was known in the art to mix two signals of a
common digital format, that is, to mix digital PCM formatted
information representing raw audio data.
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
6
Bergher, for example, has more compelling teachings than
realized by the examiner as they apply to the subject matter of
representative independent claim 1 on appeal. There appears to
be no real dispute that the Dolby AC-3â„¢ and MPEG-2 audio data are
in a compressed format (claim 19 on appeal) or otherwise known to
be in a "perceptually based" format. Each of these types of
formats are clearly decoded into a common data stream thus
appearing to indicate that it was known to receive a first audio
data stream in a first perceptually based format and decoding it
into a (linear) pulse code modulated format, and "obtaining" a
second audio data stream through its corresponding process since
the integrated circuit chip of Bergher is taught to provide
plural input channels of at least these two types of compressed
audio information. The discussion of the input data processor at
the first column of page 571 suggests not only decoding of the
information into a common audio bit stream by removing all of the
extra buffering digital information, but also to apparently
linearize it in order "to give consistent data to the DSP core"
of Figure 1 at page 569 to process. In a similar manner, the
teachings at the top of column 1 at Bergher's page 571 seems to
indicate not only the use of a CODEC, the idea of interleaving
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
7
or mixing common PCM sampled information is taught as well.
This reference also appears to suggest the subject matter of
dependent claim 2 and the encoding clause of independent claim
12, which are not argued but which are indirectly reflected in
the arguments presented by appellants with respect to claim 20
which recites essentially the same feature of encoding the
combined data stream in a second compressed format before it is
received by a CODEC device. The architecture of Figure 1 at page
569 of Bergher indicates that there are plural channels of PCM
data outputted but as well that there is also formatted or
encoded digitized output information of a common channel. This
feature is also shown by the formatted 296 to the far right of
Farhangi's Figure 2.
When looked at in the proper perspective, appellants'
disclosed and claimed invention appears to seek to decode
disparate or diverse types of audio coded information into a
common audio digitized format for later coding and outputting.
This is essentially what Bergher does. Similarly, the same may
be said of Farhangi and the explicit aim of Alexander, as well,
for example. The Abstract and Summary at column 1 of Alexander
makes it clear that not only are digital sources of data of
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
8
diverse formats mixed by digital mixers, the analog sources of
data are first digitized after they have been mixed for
subsequent common mixing by the digital mixers of Alexander to
yield a mixed digital audio output stream. PCM data is
bidirectionally exchanged in Alexander as best represented in
Figure 1B which is representative of the broader showing in
Figure 1A. The focus of this reference is a CODEC (Figure 2A),
a feature also suggested in Bergher as well as shown in the far
right corner of Farhangi's Figure 2 teaching to provide an analog
output. Thus, the additional reliance upon Hinderks is
cumulative for the teachings of a CODEC. Note also the teachings
in Figure 2A of Alexander and the use of a well-known AC'97
digital controller and related circuitry which is what appellants
have disclosed as well to be known in the art. See specification
page 1. Alexander's digital mixer system 300 is shown in various
embodiments in Figures 3A-3C.
We have also indicated earlier that it appears that the
input processor discussion at the first column of 571 of Bergher
would have indicated to the artisan that the inputted, coded data
would have been decoded to give a common or consistent PCM data
stream (Figure 2) for processing by the DSP core structure shown
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
9
in Figure 1 at page 569 of Bergher. This appears to suggest
decoding to yield a uniform or linear processing approach of PCM
information. It appears to us that the artisan may also well
recognize that the basic approach of Farhangi correlates to this
as well since the Abstract and Summary of this reference states
that different types of coded digital information that may be
inputted to his device of Figure 2 may be first deformatted or
otherwise decoded into a common format before digital mixing by
mixers 277 and 278. In doing so, the title of Farhangi's patent
of "mixing of audio signals in multimedia platforms" is in part
achieved by a conversion of the digitized information to a common
sampling rate, which appears to suggest a uniform or linear PCM
approach. A corresponding discussion of column 1 at page 571 of
Bergher appears to exist as well at columns 3 and 4 of Farhangi.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Jerry Smith ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Stuart S. Levy )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JDT/cam
Appeal No. 2003-0556
Application 09/185,248
11
Timothy N. Trop
TROP, PRUNER, HU & MILES
8554 Katy Freeway, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024