Ex Parte Grancharov et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

15228395 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/228,395 08/04/2016
102721 7590 07/01/2019
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Volodya Grancharov
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.
1009-1931 / P36942 US3 1177
EXAMINER
CHAWAN, VIJAYB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VOLODY A GRANCHAROV, TOMAS JANSSON TOFTGARD,
SEBASTIAN NASLUND and HARALD POBLOTH
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
Technology Center 2600
Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 17--46, which constitute all of the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "transform encoding/ decoding of
audio signals, especially harmonic audio signals." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 17,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1 7. A method of processing a frame of a harmonic audio
signal comprising an overall set of spectral coefficients going
from a lowest frequency to a highest frequency and
representing the signal energy of the harmonic audio signal in
corresponding frequency bins, the method comprising:
coding up to a defined number of spectral peak regions of
the harmonic audio signal within the frame, using a first
reserved allocation of bits from an overall bit budget and where
each spectral peak region encompasses a respective subset of
spectral coefficients in the overall set of spectral coefficients;
coding at least some of the spectral coefficients not
included in the spectral peak regions, going in order of
increasing frequency up to a variable cutoff frequency, by:
coding, using a second reserved allocation of bits
from the overall bit budget and up to some number of any
unused bits remaining from the first reserved allocation
of bits, a first set of the spectral coefficients not included
in the spectral peak regions; and
in dependence on the availability of further unused
bits remaining from the first reserved allocation of bits,
coding one or more further sets of the spectral
coefficients not included in the spectral peak regions;
coding noise-floor gains for the spectral coefficients
above the cutoff frequency, using a third reserved allocation of
bits from the overall bit budget; and
outputting, as an encoded frequency transform
corresponding to the frame of the harmonic audio signal, the
coded spectral peak regions, the coded spectral coefficients, and
the coded noise-floor gains.
App. Br. 28-29 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
REJECTIONS
Claims 17--46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter. Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S. C. § 1 OJ Rejections
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S.
593, 611 (2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,
3
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
594--95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63,
69 (1972)).
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal citation
omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional
features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
("Memorandum"). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
orgamzmg human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed., Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
4
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-57.
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2A, Prong 1
Under the first step of the Alice/Mayo framework, the Examiner
concludes that the claims "as written basically encode based on
mathematical calculation or remaining bit available (i.e. bit allocation),
which is similar to organizing data using mathematical operations." Ans. 6
(citing Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging Inc., 758 F.3d 1344
(Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also Final Act. 3 ("claims are directed to a method of
encoding/an encoder and decoding/decoder, of processing a frame of
harmonic audio signal") ( citing RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). According to the Examiner, the "claims
are directed (preamble) to encoding/decoding coefficients of a harmonic
signal i.e. values of the signal which is mathematical in nature." Ans. 6.
The Examiner further concludes that the "claims as written do not do
anything other than bit allocation and encoding of spectral values which are
purely mathematical in nature." Ans. 7.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention does not constitute "mere
mathematical algorithms," but rather "set[ s] forth an improved encoding
method and encoding circuitry, based on a rather detailed series of coding
operations and corresponding management of bit allocations." App. Br. 21.
Specifically, Appellants argue the "claims do not claim the math of coding
5
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
spectral coefficients or a harmonic audio signal" or "the math of
reconstructing spectral coefficients of a harmonic signal," but rather
"capture a specific technique ... of processing a frame of a harmonic audio
signal." Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, the claimed "spectral
coefficients are much more than mere mathematical values" and "the claims
do far more than say 'code the set of spectral coefficients representing one
frame of a harmonic audio signal.'" Reply Br. 6; see Reply Br. 5.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Memorandum
"extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract
ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following
groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s)
(that is, when recited on their own or per se )":
(a) Mathematical concepts-mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity-
fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
( c) Mental processes----concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (footnotes omitted). The Examiner's
conclusion that the claimed invention recites organizing data using
mathematical operations does not sufficiently explain how the claimed
invention recites an abstract idea under the guidelines established in the
Memorandum. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
6
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
Appellants' invention is titled "Transform Encoding/Decoding of
Harmonic Audio Signals." Appellants explain that "[t]ransform encoding is
the main technology used to compress and transmit audio signals." Spec.
,r 3. Appellants further explain that "[a]n object of the proposed technology
is a transform encoding/decoding scheme that is more suited for harmonic
audio signals." Spec. ,r 7. The claimed invention recites, inter alia, "coding
up to a defined number of spectral peak regions of the harmonic audio signal
within the frame, using a first reserved allocation of bits from an overall bit
budget," "coding at least some of the spectral coefficients not included in the
spectral peak regions ... using a second reserved allocation of bits from the
overall bit budget," and "coding noise-floor gains for the spectral
coefficients above the cutoff frequency, using a third reserved allocation of
bits from the overall bit budget." See App. Br. 28-29, 31-32, 33-34, 37-38.
The claimed invention does not recite mathematical algorithms, but rather
requires "a series of coding operations and corresponding management of bit
allocations." See App. Br. 21. Moreover, the Examiner's reliance on
several block quotes from RecogniCorp (Ans. 3---6; Final Act. 3-5) does not
sufficiently explain how the claims in this case recite a mathematical
calculation. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has not sufficiently
established that the claims recite an abstract idea under the guidelines in the
Memorandum.
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2A, Prong 2
Further, even if we agreed that the claims recite an abstract idea,
such as a mathematical concept, we determine the claims recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55.
7
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
Appellants contend that the "claims are directed to an improved
encoding method and apparatus, for encoding harmonic audio signals."
App. Br. 18; see App. Br. 18-19. Specifically, Appellants argue that the
claims "capture a specific technique ... of processing a frame of a
harmonic audio signal that is advantageous in view of its harmonic nature"
and "a specific technique for reconstructing the spectral coefficients of a
harmonic audio signal that was coded in the specific manner" claimed.
Reply Br. 3; see Reply Br. 5---6.
Appellants further argue that, like in Enfzsh, the claimed invention is
"directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the
software arts" and represents "an improvement in the functioning of a
computer." App. Br. 22 (citing Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Specifically, Appellants argue that claims 17 and
32 "address the problem of managing finite coding resources ( overall bit
budget) when encoding frames of a harmonic audio signal." App. Br. 22.
Appellants also argue that claims 26 and 41 "capture specific,
complementary improvements for reconstructing the spectral coefficients
of a harmonic audio signal." App. Br. 22.
On the current record, we are persuaded claims 17 and 26 recite
additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Appellants explain that "[t]ransform encoding is the main
technology used to compress and transmit audio signals." Spec. ,r 3.
Appellants further explain that "[t]he conventional transform encoding
concept does not work well with very harmonic audio signals, e.g. single
instruments" because "the normalization with the spectrum envelope does
not result in a sufficiently 'flat' residual vector, and the residual encoding
8
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
scheme cannot produce an audio signal of acceptable quality." Spec. ,r 6.
Appellants describe that "[t]his mismatch between the signal and the
encoding model can be resolved only at very high bitrates, but in most cases
this solution is not suitable." Spec. ,r 6. Appellants' invention seeks to solve
this problem with "a transform encoding/decoding scheme that is more
suited for harmonic audio signals." Spec. ,r 7. Appellants' invention
provides this solution by not splitting "the frequency transform vector ...
into envelope and residual part, but instead spectral peaks are directly
extracted and quantized, together with neighboring MDCT bins." Spec.
,r 35. As a result, "the signal model used in the conventional encoding,
{ spectrum envelope + residual} is replaced with a new model { spectral
peaks+ noise-floor}." Spec. ,r 35.
Claim 17 recites "processing a frame of a harmonic audio signal
comprising an overall set of spectral coefficients ... and representing the
signal energy of the harmonic audio signal in corresponding frequency
bins," by "coding up to a defined number of spectral peak regions of the
harmonic audio signal within the frame, using a first reserved allocation of
bits from an overall bit budget," "coding at least some of the spectral
coefficients not included in the spectral peak regions ... using a second
reserved allocation of bits from the overall bit budget," "coding noise-floor
gains for the spectral coefficients above the cutoff frequency, using a third
reserved allocation of bits from the overall bit budget," and "outputting, as
an encoded frequency transform corresponding to the frame of the harmonic
audio signal, the coded spectral peak regions, the coded spectral coefficients,
and the coded noise-floor gains." App. Br. 28-29; see App. Br. 33-34.
9
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
Claim 26 recites a complementary method of "reconstructing spectral
coefficients for a frame of a harmonic audio signal," by:
receiving an encoded frequency transform comprising coded
peak regions representing spectral coefficients of the harmonic
audio signal within corresponding peak regions of the harmonic
audio signal, one or more coded lower-frequency bands of the
harmonic audio signal representing spectral coefficients of the
harmonic audio signal that were not included in the peak
regions of the harmonic audio signal and were below a variable
cutoff frequency, and coded noise-floor gains representing
spectral coefficients of the harmonic audio signal that were not
included in the spectral peak regions of the harmonic audio
signal and were above the variable cutoff frequency;
and "reconstructing" each of "the spectral coefficients of the harmonic audio
signal" and "outputting the reconstructed spectral coefficients as a decoded
frequency transform representing the frame of the harmonic audio signal."
App. Br. 31-32; see App. Br. 37-38.
Like the claims in DDR, claims 17 and 26 "do not merely recite the
performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world
along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet." DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). "Instead,
the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks."
Id. Indeed, the coding and reconstructing of the various spectral coefficients
using specific reserved allocations of bits from the overall bit budget
pertains to encoding and decoding the spectral coefficients for a harmonic
audio signal. Likewise, Appellants' claims address a problem specifically
arising in the compression and transmission of audio signals (i.e., that
conventional transform encoding does not work well for harmonic audio
signals). The claims, in light of the Specification, are directed to solving a
10
Appeal2018-007981
Application 15/228,395
problem related to computer technology for "processing a frame of a
harmonic audio signal that is advantageous in view of its harmonic nature"
and "reconstructing the spectral coefficients of a harmonic audio signal," for
which there is no pre-Internet analogy. Reply Br. 3; see Reply Br. 5---6; App.
Br. 18-19.
We, therefore, find the claimed additional elements integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's § 101 rejection of claims 17--46.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 17--46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
REVERSED
11