Ex Parte Gradl

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2010

10218219 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2010)

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