Ex Parte GIGI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 7, 2004

09306960 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 7, 2004)

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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ERCAN F. GIGI
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1053
Application No. 09/306,960
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, DIXON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-6,
which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2003-1053
Application No. 09/306,960
2
Appellant's invention relates to refinement of pitch detection. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is
reproduced below.
1. A method of determining successive pitch periods/frequencies in an
audio equivalent signal; the method comprising:
dividing the audio equivalent signal into a sequence of mutually
overlapping or adjacent pitch detection segments;
determining an initial value of the pitch frequency/period for each of
the pitch detection segments; and
based on the determined initial value, determining a refined value
of the pitch frequency/period;
characterized in that the step of determining a refined value of the
pitch frequency/period comprises:
forming a sequence of pitch refinement segments by:
- positioning a chain of time windows with respect to the audio
equivalent signal; and
- weighting the signal according to an associated window function
of the respective time window;
each pitch refinement segment being associated with at least one
of the pitch detection segments;
forming a filtered signal by filtering each pitch refinement segment
to extract a frequency component with a frequency substantially
corresponding to an initially determined pitch frequency of an associated
pitch detection segment; and
determining the successive pitch periods/frequencies from the
filtered signal.
Appeal No. 2003-1053
Application No. 09/306,960
3
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is as follows:
Su 5,781,880 Jul. 14, 1998
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Su.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Apr. 9, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed Feb. 12, 2002) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no difference
between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of
Appeal No. 2003-1053
Application No. 09/306,960
4
ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v.
Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The examiner maintains that Su teaches the invention as recited in independent
claims 1 and 6. (Answer at pages 4-6.) The examiner states that appellant’s argument
concerning the filtering of the refinement segments is missing the point, and that once a
signal has been low passed filtered to find the initial pitch lag, the signal stays low pass
filtered in the succeeding steps and does not become unfiltered. (Answer at page 6.)
While we agree with the examiner about a filtered signal remaining filtered, it is the
express language of the claim that appellant has been arguing. The language of
independent claims 1 and 6 expressly recite “forming a filtered signal by filtering each
pitch refinement segment to extract a frequency component with a frequency
substantially corresponding to an initially determined pitch frequency of an associated
pitch detection segment.” (Emphasis added.) Here, we find that the step of low-pass
filtering of Su is with respect to the pitch detection segment and not the pitch refinement
segment. Whether the pitch refinement signal remains filtered at this point in the
process does not teach filtering after the step of forming the sequence of refinement
segments by filtering each refinement segment. Therefore, we agree with appellant that
Su does not teach every limitation as recited in independent claims 1 and 6. Therefore,
we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 and their dependent
claims.
Appeal No. 2003-1053
Application No. 09/306,960
5
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JLD:clm
Appeal No. 2003-1053
Application No. 09/306,960
6
Philips Intellectual Property & Standards
P.O. Box 3001
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510