Ex Parte Herre et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

10883538 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte JUERGEN HERRE, SASCHA DISCH, JOHANNES HILPERT,
CHRISTIAN ERTEL, ANDREAS HOELZER, AND
CLAUS-CHRISTIAN SPENGER
_____________

Appeal 2011-009364
Application 10/883,538
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and J. JOHN LEE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3 through 5, and 7 through 25. Claims 2 and 6 have been
canceled.
We reverse.

Appeal 2011- 009364
Application 10/883,538

2

INVENTION
The invention relates to “multi-channel audio reconstruction using a
base channel and parametric side information for reconstructing an output
signal having a plurality of channels.” Abstract and page 1 of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. Multi-channel synthesizer for generating an output signal
from an input signal, the input signal having at least one input channel
and a sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters, the quantized
reconstruction parameters being quantized in accordance with a
quantization rule, and being associated with subsequent time portions
of the input channel, the output signal having a number of synthesized
output channels, and the number of synthesized output channels being
greater than 1 or greater than a number of input channels, comprising:
an input signal analyser for analysing the input signal to
determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input signal
to be processed;
a post processor for determining a post processed
reconstruction parameter or a post processed quantity derived from
the reconstruction parameter depending on the signal characteristic
determined by the input signal analyzer for the time portion of the
input signal to be processed, wherein the post processor is operative to
determine the post processed reconstruction parameter or the post
processed quantity such that a value of the post processed
reconstruction parameter or the post processed quantity is different
from a value obtainable using requantization in accordance with the
quantization rule,
wherein the post processor is operative to perform a smoothing
function before or after requantization so that a sequence of post
processed reconstruction parameters is smoother in time compared to
a sequence of non-post-processed inversely quantized reconstruction
parameters; and
a multi-channel reconstructor for reconstructing a time portion
of the number of synthesized output channels using the time portion
of the input channel and the post processed reconstruction parameter
or the post processed value.

Appeal 2011- 009364
Application 10/883,538

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 9, 11 through 13, 15, 17,
through 19, 21 and 23 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Faller (Christof Faller and Frank Baumgarte, Binaural Cue Coding
Applied to Stereo and Mult-Channel Audio Compression, Audio
Engineering Society (AES) 112th Convention, 1-9 (May 2002)) and
Baumgarte (U.S. 2003/0035553A1). Answer 4-131.
The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Faller, Baumgarte and Smyth (U.S.
5,956,674). Answer 14-18.
The Examiner has rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Faller, Baumgarte, Smyth and Spurrier (U.S.
2003/0220801 A1). Answer 18.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ argument, on pages 14 and 15 of
the Appeal Brief, that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Faller and Baumgarte teaches “an input signal analyser for analysing the
input signal to determine a signal characteristic of a time portion of the input
signal to be processed” (claim 1) where the input signal has at least one

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 16,
2010, Reply Brief dated March 17, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on February 17, 2011.
Appeal 2011- 009364
Application 10/883,538

4

input channel and a sequence of quantized reconstruction parameters. Each
of independent claims 1 and 25 recites a limitation directed to the input
signal analyzer analyzing this input signal. The Examiner finds Faller
teaches this feature citing elements depicted in Faller’s Figure 5 (the
encoder). Answer 21 and 22. However, the Examiner finds the claimed
input signal is taught by the signals input to the decoder depicted in Faller’s
Figure 10 instead. Answer 20 and 21. While the signals input to the
decoder, of Faller’s Figure 10, may meet the claimed input signal, the
Examiner has not shown a signal analyzer in the decoder that receives this
input signal. Further, while elements of the Faller’s encoder may meet the
claimed signal analyzer, the Examiner has not shown Faller teaches a signal
analyzer which receives an input signal as recited in the claim. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 9, 11 through 13,
15, 17 through 19, 21 and 23 through 25.
The Examiner relies upon similar findings in rejecting claims 4, 5, 7,
8, 10, 14, 16, 20 and 22. The Examiner has not found that Smyth and
Spurrier make up for the deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims
1 and 25 discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, and 22.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3 through 5, and 7
through 25 is reversed.

REVERSED
llw