Ex Parte GradlDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 26, 201010218219 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte DIETMAR GRADL _____________ Appeal 2009-004850 Application 10/218,219 Technology Center 2600 _______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-004850 Application 10/218,219 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for searching a speech signal encoder using an algebraic codebook. See Spec. 1-4. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method for the algebraic codebook search of a speech signal encoder, preferably using the Code Excited Linear Prediction process, in which, in order to calculate coefficients of the triangular matrix of the auto-correlation matrix of the Toeplitz type, a time interval comprising n speech signal samplings is broken down into an integral number of tracks t with p possible pulse positions each, the method comprising: storing the coefficients in a memory grouped in categories comprising: i) combinations of adjacent tracks; ii) combinations of non-adjacent tracks; iii) combinations of identical tracks; and iv) coefficients of main diagonals of the auto-correlation matrix; wherein within at least multiple ones of said categories i)-iv), successive coefficients within that category are stored in memory locations having physical addresses within the memory that are separated by a constant step width; and performing an iterative code search process, comprising successively accessing coefficients in a selected category using the constant step width. REFERENCES Maung US 5,924,062 Jul. 13, 1999 Freeman US 6,016,468 Jan. 18, 2000 Cohen US 6,415,255 B1 Jul. 2, 2002 2 Appeal 2009-004850 Application 10/218,219 Ee US 6,545,833 B1 Apr. 8, 2003 (filed Apr. 28, 2000) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maung in view of Cohen and Freeman. Ans. 3-11. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maung in view of Cohen, Freeman, and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Ans. 11-12. ISSUES Claims 1-17 Appellant argues on pages 7-8 of the Appeal Brief and pages 5-12 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17 is in error. Appellant selects claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1- 17. App. Br. 8. Appellant argues that it is not obvious to combine Maung with Cohen. App. Br. 8. Thus, with respect to claims 1-17, Appellant’s contentions present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding it obvious to combine Maung with Cohen? 3 Appeal 2009-004850 Application 10/218,219 Claim 182 Appellant argues on page 8 of the Appeal Brief and page 12 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 is in error. Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 1 and contains similar limitations to claim 1. Appellant initially argues that the Examiner has not provided a citation to support the Examiner’s finding of an admission by Appellant. App. Br. 8. Additionally, Appellant argues that claim 18 is allowable based upon its dependency on independent claim 1. Reply Br. 12. Thus, with respect to claim 18, Appellant’s contentions present us with the same issue as claim 1 and the additional issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Applicant Admitted Prior Art? ANALYSIS Claims 1-17 Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of Maung and Cohen since the storage schemes of the references differ fundamentally. App. Br. 8. However, the Examiner reasons that even if the storage schemes are fundamentally different, it would have been obvious to combine them because the combination would increase search efficiency. Ans. 15. Thus the Examiner has provided a reasonable basis for combining the references 2 We note that Appellant’s heading for this argument on page 8 of the Appeal Brief includes claims 1-17. However, this rejection is directed to claim 18 as indicated within the body of the argument. 4 Appeal 2009-004850 Application 10/218,219 and we do not consider Appellant’s arguments that the storage schemes differ to be sufficient to show error in the Examiner’s rationale. Appellant makes additional arguments in the Reply Brief that the references do not contain the claim limitations and addressing the Examiner’s rationale for combining the references. Reply Br. 5-12. We find these arguments to be belated and thus entitled to no consideration. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (“informative”) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in the Reply Brief that could have been presented in the principal Brief on Appeal). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-17 which have been grouped with claim 1. Claim 18 Appellant’s contentions have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 1. Appellant presents arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1. Reply Br. 12. Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s previously presented arguments to be persuasive for the same reasons as we stated above. Appellant’s additional argument that the Examiner has not provided a citation for Appellant’s admission is also not persuasive. The Examiner gives notice on pages 16-17 of the Answer that Official Notice was taken to reject claim 18’s limitations in the Office Action mailed November 22, 2005. Appellant did not traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in any subsequent actions. Further, Appellant does not make any additional arguments in the Reply Brief regarding the Examiner’s finding of Official Notice. Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive. 5 Appeal 2009-004850 Application 10/218,219 For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine Maung with Cohen. The Examiner did not err in finding the Applicant Admitted Prior Art since Appellant failed to traverse the Examiner’s finding of Official Notice. ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 6 Appeal 2009-004850 Application 10/218,219 AFFIRMED ELD NXP, B.V. NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING M/S41-SJ 1109 MCKAY DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation