Ex Parte Hohmann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

11223204 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/223,204 09/12/2005 Volker Hohmann 03100252AA 6588
30743 7590 02/28/2013
WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C.
11491 SUNSET HILLS ROAD
SUITE 340
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
FAHNERT, FRIEDRICH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2654
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VOLKER HOHMANN
____________

Appeal 2011-001335
Application 11/223,204
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001335
Application 11/223,204

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to limiting the dynamic
range of audio signals (S) providing for control of the dynamic range
limiting on the basis of the instantaneous frequency of the audio signal (S)
which is to be compressed as a control parameter. See Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for limiting the dynamic range of audio signals (S),
characterized by control of the dynamic range limiting on the basis of
the instantaneous frequency of the audio signal (S) which is to be
compressed as a control parameter.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Holube (US 6,198,830 B1; issued Mar. 6,
2001) in view of Jeruchim (Jeruchim et al., Simulation of
communication systems, modeling, methodology, and techniques, 2nd
Ed., ISBN 0-306-46267, Springer, 10/31/2000, page 256).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Holube in view of Jeruchim et al. and further
in view of Ludvigsen (US 6,628,795 B1; issued Sept. 30, 2003).
Appeal 2011-001335
Application 11/223,204

3
3. The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holube, Jeruchim and further in view of Ludvigsen.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Holube and Jeruchim teaches the limitation of a “dynamic
range limiting on the basis of the instantaneous frequency of the audio signal
(S) which is to be compressed as a control parameter” as recited in claim 1.

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Our reviewing court states that “the words of a claim ‘are generally
given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)(internal citations omitted). The
description in the Specification can limit the apparent breadth of a claim in
two instances: (1) where the Specification reveals a special definition given
to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would
otherwise possess; and (2), where the Specification reveals an intentional
disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. Id. at 1316.
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part
of “a fully integrated written instrument” consisting principally
of a specification that concludes with the claims. For that
reason, claims “must be read in view of the specification, of
which they are a part.” . . . [T]he specification “is always highly
relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term.”
Id. 1315 (citations omitted).

Appeal 2011-001335
Application 11/223,204

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 6-8
Appellant argues that the term “instantaneous frequency” as defined
in Jeruchim has technically nothing to do with a real actual frequency (App.
Br. 21). Appellant asserts that Jeruchim describes the instantaneous
frequency as being the derivative of a phase modulated signal, which has
nothing to do with an actual frequency (App. Br. 21).
We do not agree. Appellant’s Specification refers us to Douglas J.
Nelson, “Cross-spectral methods for processing speech,” Journal of Acoustic
Society of America, Vol. 110, No. 5, pt 1, November 2001, page 2577 for
determining the instantaneous frequency according to known methods (Spec.
5:36-6:13). The Examiner quoted, from the Nelson reference, the definition
of instantaneous frequency as being an “instantaneous estimate of the rate of
change of the phase with respect to time,” and therefore representing “a re-
estimation of the frequency of the dominant signal component” (Ans. 7).
Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellant’s assertion that Jeruchim’s
instantaneous frequency described as the derivative of a phase modulated
signal, has nothing to do with an actual frequency (App. Br. 21). The
Examiner interpreted the term “instantaneous frequency” in a manner
consistent with the guidance given in Appellant’s Specification. See
Phillips., 415 F.3d at 1315. We note that Appellant has not contested the
Examiner’s citation to the Nelson reference defining the instantaneous
frequency (see Reply Br. 1-5).
Appellant further argues that Jeruchim discloses a mathematical
model to describe a behavior of a power signal which is not the same as
Appeal 2011-001335
Application 11/223,204

5
limiting the audio signal by the instantaneous frequency of the signal (App.
Br. 22).
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Appellant misinterpreted the teaching of Jeruchim regarding
the dynamic range of a signal based on the instantaneous frequency (Ans. 7
and 8). Jeruchim provides a method where the instantaneous frequency
output f(k) controls the gain of the amplifier (triangle shown in Figure 5.27;
pg. 256). The first equation in Jeruchim (pg. 256) shows how the amplitude
of the output y(k) is controlled by the instantaneous frequency f(k):
y(k) == g[A(k)f(k)]exp {fθ(k)+fɸ[A(k), f(k)]}
We agree with the Examiner that in the above equation A(k)is the
amplitude at the output of the filter H(f) and θ(k) is the corresponding phase
(Ans. 7-8). The amplitude of the output signal g[A(k)f(k)] is thus controlled
by the instantaneous frequency (Ans. 8). Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Jeruchim teaches that the instantaneous frequency can control
the gain of the output amplifier (See Ans. 3).
Holube teaches limiting the dynamic range of audio signals by
variation of the compression ratio of the amplification element, particularly
the AGC amplification element (col. 2, ll. 16-24). Jeruchim teaches that the
instantaneous frequency can control the gain of the output amplifier as we
discussed supra. Thus, we conclude that it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time of the invention to use the teaching of Jeruchim
to replace the gain control part of Holube so that the instantaneous frequency
would control the gain of the output amplifier AGC.
Appellant further asserts that the “amplifier” of Jeruchim’s Figure
5.27 to which the Examiner refers is not identified as an amplifier in the
Appeal 2011-001335
Application 11/223,204

6
conventional sense, but rather constitutes a nonlinear system characterized
by a two-dimensional complex table (App. Br. 23).
We do not agree. It is conventional in the electrical engineering arts
to symbolize an amplifier as a triangle as shown in Figure 5.27, and as such
no further identification is needed to show that it is in fact an amplifier (see
e.g. the operational amplifier indicated as a triangle in Electrical Symbols &
Electronic Symbols,
http://www.rapidtables.com/electric/electrical_symbols.htm, last visited
02/25/2013). Also, there is an output y(k) indicated in Figure 5.27 from the
amplifier which is a function of the instantaneous frequency as discussed
above. Thus, we do not agree with the Appellant’s assertion that the
amplifier is a nonlinear system characterized by a two-dimensional complex
table.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-4 and 6-8.
Claims 4, 5, and 9
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 5, and 9 because
Appellant did not present any additional arguments of patentability.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Holube
and Jeruchim teaches the limitation of a “dynamic range limiting on the
basis of the instantaneous frequency of the audio signal (S) which is to be
compressed as a control parameter” as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2011-001335
Application 11/223,204

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 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)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk