Ex Parte Gao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

12381036 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/381,036 0310612009 Yang Gao
35690 7590 07/03/2018
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
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.
6757-37115 3809
EXAMINER
OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANG GAO and ADIL BENY ASSINE
Appeal2017-011791
Application 12/3 81,036
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 78-92. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 78-89 and 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 78-92 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Swaminathan (US 5,596,676; Jan. 21, 1997) and Foodeei (US
6,240,385 Bl; May 29, 2001). Final Act. 3-6.
We reverse.
Appeal2017-011791
Application 12/381,036
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "an improved code-excited linear
prediction coding system and method of coding the gain quantization
parameters of a speech signal with fewer bits." Spec. 2: 17-19. Claim 78 is
illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed limitation
emphasized:
78. A speech encoding system comprising:
at least one processing circuit; and
a memory storing a first vector quantization codebook and a second
vector quantization codebook, and instructions executable by the at least one
processing circuit to cause the speech encoding system to transform an input
speech signal into an output bitstream by:
generating a plurality of subframes of a frame of the input
speech signal;
generating unquantized pitch gains for the respective
subframes;
selecting a mode from a plurality of modes based on the frame
of the input speech signal;
in response to the mode being a first of the modes:
selecting a quantized pitch gain vector from the first
vector quantization codebook based on the unquantized pitch gains, wherein
the quantized pitch gain vector is selected in an open loop fashion, wherein
the quantized pitch gain vector includes adaptive-codebook gain components
corresponding respectively to the subframes of the frame;
2
Appeal2017-011791
Application 12/381,036
performing subframe processing based on data including
the quantized pitch gain vector to select a first excitation from a fixed
excitation codebook;
and
selecting a second gain vector from the second vector
quantization codebook using the first excitation and a closed loop
minimization, wherein the second gain vector includes fixed-codebook gain
components corresponding respectively to the subframes of the frame;
generating the output bitstream that includes first information
indicating the quantized pitch gain vector and second information indicating
the second gain vector in response to the mode being the first mode; and
transmission circuitry operable to transmit the output bitstream
via a radiofrequency link, wherein the output bitstream includes information
that is decodable by a remote handheld device to play a reproduced version
of the input speech signal.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
3
Appeal2017-011791
Application 12/381,036
ANALYSIS
THE NON-STATUTORY SUBJECT MATTER REJECTION
OF CLAIMS 78-89 AND 92
Contentions
The Examiner finds
Claims 78-89, 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception
(i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
without significantly more. Claims 78-91 [sic] are directed to
the abstract idea of calculating pitch parameters and
mathematically calculating related speech parameters. The
claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the claimed elements toward a processor, memory,
transmission circuitry, and generated bitstream require generic
computational elements well known in the industry of digital
signal processing as applied to speech signal processing. Lastly,
the claim amendment toward "wherein the output bitstream is a
transformed version of the input speech signal" is descriptive in
nature and does not actively claim a valid significantly more
transformation (the claim language is toward 'what the
bitstream is', and NOT an actual active transform). Similarly,
the claim language "to play", "configured to play" (claims 78,
88) is in intended-use format (which has been determined to be,
not "significantly more"; in contra-distinction, using an action
verb of transforming, such as synthesizing/playing 'the speech
signal', would over [sic] the 'intended use' format).
Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 8-11.
Appellants argue claim 78 is directed to statutory subject matter. See
App. Br. 12-18; see also Reply Br. 2--4. Among other arguments,
Appellants argue the claims are directed to improvements in computer-
related technology and are analogous to McRO (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
4
Appeal2017-011791
Application 12/381,036
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). App. Br.
15-16. In particular, Appellants argue the following:
Similarly, although coding of speech is an ex1stmg
process, Appellant submits that the particular features of claim
78 improve this process rather than simply using computers as a
tool. In particular, the claims include technical features that
enable a lower bit rate for periodic-like speech frames, which
may reduce bandwidth and storage requirements for encoded
speech without significantly reducing speech quality. See
specification at page 16, lines 12-16. Examples of features of
claim 78 that enable these improvements include, without
limitation: "generating unquantized pitch gains for the
respective subframes," "selecting a quantized pitch gain vector
from the first vector quantization codebook based on the
unquantized pitch gains," and "selecting a second gain vector
from the second vector quantization codebook using the first
excitation and a closed loop minimization."
App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
Our Review
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the
Supreme Court applied the framework as set forth in Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) for determining
whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to one of [the judicially-recognized] patent-
ineligible concepts." Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible
concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of
the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297).
5
Appeal2017-011791
Application 12/381,036
However, the Federal Circuit has articulated that "the first step in the Alice
inquiry ... asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted
improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that
qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool." Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit determined, if "the claims are
directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the
software arts," then "the claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea."
Id. at 1339. The Federal Circuit also determined claims directed to "limited
rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technical
result in conventional industry practice" are not directed to an abstract idea.
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
We agree with Appellants that the claims are directed to
improvements in computer-related technology and are analogous to McRO.
See App. Br. 15-16. In McRO, the court found that a claim reciting a system
of automated facial animation through the use of rules, rather than by artists
setting weights, to automate tasks that humans perform is directed to patent-
eligible subject matter. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. The court found that the
process performed by human animators is not the same as the rules-based
process recited in the claimed automation, as the human process is driven by
subjective determinations. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. Thus, the court in
McRO held that it was the use of rules that improved the technological
process, and by incorporating the specific rules, the claim is limited to a
specific process for animation that is not an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at
1315-16.
6
Appeal2017-011791
Application 12/381,036
We conclude the instant claim limitations are similar to the claim
limitations at issue in McRO. Although the claim limitations directed to the
quantized pitch gain vector and the second gain vector involve mathematical
operations, similar to McRO, the Examiner has not shown that they are the
same as conventionally performed. Further, similar to McRO, the claims do
not merely organize information into a new form. Rather, the claim
limitations recite a specific technique that enables a lower bit rate for period-
like speech frames. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. As such, the claim limitations
are directed to improving a technological process. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 78.
Independent claims 83 and 88 each recite, in essence, the same claim
limitations directed to the quantized pitch gain vector and the second gain
vector. We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 83 and 88 for the same reasons.
Claims 79--82 and 92 depend from claim 78; claims 84--87 depend
from claim 83; and claim 89 depends from claim 88. We, therefore, also do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 79-82, 84--87, 89,
and 92 for the same reasons.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 78-92
OVER SW AMINATHAN AND FOODEEI
Contentions
The Examiner finds Swaminathan and Foodeei teach all limitations of
claim 78. Final Act. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner finds Swaminathan
teaches the key disputed limitation: "selecting a second gain vector from the
second vector quantization codebook using the first excitation and a closed
7
Appeal2017-011791
Application 12/381,036
loop minimization, wherein the second gain vector includes fixed-codebook
gain components corresponding respectively to the subframes of the frame."
Final Act. 4 (citing Swaminathan col. 8, 11. 47-59).
Appellants argue, with respect to the key disputed limitation, the
following principal argument:
"What is actually described in [the cited] passage is the processing in
Figure 16A, which computes absolute time-differences of a filtered speech
signal related to a determination of whether transients are present in the
speech signal." App. Br. 22-23. "There is no such 'closed loop' feature
suggested by Swaminathan, either in the cited portion or elsewhere. The
Examiner thus has not advanced any cogent theory on how Swaminathan is
believed to disclose a 'closed loop' or a 'closed loop minimization."' App.
Br. 23.
In response, the Examiner further finds "Swaminathan, col. 10, lines
30-65, in the three modes A, B, C, disclos[ es] a discussion of closed loop
pitch analysis." Ans. 13.
Appellants reiterate, in the Reply Brief, that Swaminathan does not
teach the key disputed limitation. See Reply Br. 5---6.
Our Review
Swaminathan (col. 8, 11. 47-59, cited in the Final Action) discloses
determining whether transients are present in the speech signal. See
Swaminathan col. 8, 11. 47-59. Thus, this cited portion of Swaminathan does
not teach the key disputed limitation: "selecting a second gain vector from
the second vector quantization codebook using the first excitation and a
closed loop minimization, wherein the second gain vector includes fixed-
8
Appeal2017-011791
Application 12/381,036
codebook gain components corresponding respectively to the subframes of
the frame" because we find this cited portion of Swaminathan does not
disclose closed loop minimization for selecting the fixed-codebook gain
components.
Swaminathan (col. 10, 11. 30-65, cited in the Answer) discloses closed
loop pitch estimates. See Swaminathan col. 10, 11. 30-65. However, this
cited portion of Swaminathan does not teach the key disputed limitation:
"selecting a second gain vector from the second vector quantization
codebook using the first excitation and a closed loop minimization, wherein
the second gain vector includes fixed-codebook gain components
corresponding respectively to the subframes of the frame" because we find
this cited portion of Swaminathan does not disclose closed loop
minimization for selecting the fixed-codebook gain components.
On the record before us, the Examiner's findings that Swaminathan
teaches the key disputed limitation are not adequately supported with
citations to Swaminathan. In particular, the key disputed limitation is
directed to closed loop minimization for selecting the fixed-codebook gain
components rather than determining whether transients are present in the
speech signal (see Final Act. 4) or closed loop pitch estimates (see Ans. 13).
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 78.
Independent claims 83, 88, and 90 each recite, in essence, the same
key disputed limitation. We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 83, 88, and 90 for the same reasons.
Claims 79-82 and 92 depend from claim 78; claims 84--87 depend
from claim 83; claim 89 depends from claim 88; and claim 91 depends from
9
Appeal2017-011791
Application 12/381,036
claim 90. We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 79--82, 84--87, 89, 91, and 92 for the same reasons.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 78-92 is reversed.
REVERSED
10