Ex Parte Ivanov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2018

13955186 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/955, 186 07 /31/2013 Plamen A. Ivanov
26227 7590 03/27/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
16113-6317001 1063
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TIMOTHY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PLAMEN A. IVANOV, KEVIN J. BASTYR, JOEL A. CLARK,
MARK A. JASIUK, TENKASI V. RAMABADRAN, and JINCHENG WU
Appeal2017-004165
Application 13/955,186 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, HUNG H. BUI, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-10 and 23-34. Claims
11-22 have been cancelled. App. Br. 13. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Google Inc. App. Br.
1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed April 26, 2016
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed January 17, 2017 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed November 23, 2016 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed
October 7, 2015 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed July 31,
2013 ("Spec.").
Appeal2017-004165
Application 13/955186
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "voice signal processing for voice
recognition systems." Spec. i-f 2.
Claims 1, 23, and 33 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
1. A method comprising:
monitoring an audio signal energy level of an audio
signal while a voice activity detector and one or more signal
processing components are deactivated;
determining that the audio signal energy level has
changed; and
based on determining that the audio signal energy level
has changed, activating the voice activity detector and at least
one of the one or more signal processing components.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App'x.).
Evidence Considered
Lu US 9,094,744 Bl July 28, 2015
Hennecke US 2008/0249779 Al Oct. 9, 2008
Visser II US 2008/0201138 Al Aug. 21, 2008
Song US 2008/0159560 Al July 3, 2008
Viser US 2007 /0021958 Al Jan.25,2007
Borth us 4,630,304 Dec. 16, 1986
Examiner's Rejections
(1) Claims 1-3, 23-25, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Visser and Lu. Final Act. 2-5.
2
Appeal2017-004165
Application 13/955186
(2) Claims 4 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Visser, Lu, and Borth. Final Act. 5---6.
(3) Claims 5 and 27 stand rejected under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Visser, Lu, and Song. Final Act. 6-8.
(4) Claims 6 and 28 stand rejected under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Visser, Lu, and Hennecke. Final Act. 8-9.
(5) Claims 7-10 and 29-32 stand rejected under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Visser and Visser II. Final Act. 9-11.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Visser and Lu teaches or suggests two disputed
limitations, including:
( 1) "monitoring an audio signal energy level of an audio
signal while a voice activity detector and one or more signal
processing components are deactivated"; and
(2) "based on determining that the audio signal energy level
has changed, activating the voice activity detector and at least
one of the one or more signal processing components"
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 23 and 33. See
App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 1.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 23, and 33
Independent claim 1 (and similarly, claims 23 and 33) recites a
method comprising two broad steps: (1) "monitoring an audio signal energy
level of an audio signal while a voice activity detector and one or more
3
Appeal2017-004165
Application 13/955186
signal processing components are deactivated" and (2) "based on
determining that the audio signal energy level has changed, activating the
voice activity detector and at least one of the one or more signal processing
components."
In support of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 23, and 33, the
Examiner finds the combination of Visser and Lu teaches all the limitations.
In particular, the Examiner finds Visser teaches (1) "monitoring an audio
signal energy level of signal processing components deactivated" (Final
Act. 3(citing Visser i-fi-140, 55-57, 60 and Fig. 2)), (2) "determining that the
audio signal energy level has changed" and even suggests (3) "activating
control signal." Id. (citing Visser i-fi-122, 43, 45, 51, Figs. 1-3).
Visser's Figure 1 is reproduced below:
I 1cm
.~----.·
me SH~NAl
SE'.PA:RATION
PROCESS
123
TRANSM~SStON
1
Visser's Figure 1 shows speech processing system 100 including
microphones 102-104 to monitor speech (i.e., audio signal), and voice
activity detector 106 to activate signal separation process when speech is
occurrmg.
4
Appeal2017-004165
Application 13/955186
To the extent necessary, the Examiner relies on Lu for expressly
teaching "activating the voice activity detector and at least one of the one or
more signal processing components [when the audio signal energy level has
changed]" to support the conclusion of obviousness. Ans. 3--4 (citing Lu
2:63-3:12, 4:23-36, 6:45-7:3, Figs. 2-3).
Appellants acknowledge "Visser describes, in part, that 'process 100
uses a voice activity detector 106 [shown in Fig. 1] to activate, adjust, or
control selected signal separation, post processing, or transmission
functions,' and ' [ u ]pon detecting speech, the [voice activity detector] 106
generates a control signal 107 [that] ... may be used, for example, to activate
the signal separation process only when speech is occurring."' App. Br. 4
(citing Visser i-f 40). However, Appellants argue Visser does not "monitor[]
an audio signal energy level ... while a voice activity detector [is]
deactivated." Id. According to Appellants, "Visser's 'voice activity
detector' cannot be deactivated if the 'voice activity detector' is
'generat[ing] a control signal" and"[ e ]ven assuming, arguendo, that the
'voice activity detector' is deactivated while 'generat[ing] a control signal,'
'generat[ing] a control signal' is not the same as 'monitoring an audio signal
energy level' as recited by claim 1. "' App. Br. 4--5.
Appellants also argue Lu fails to remedy the deficiency of Visser
because: (1) "'suppressing the action of the noise cancellation circuit' is not
the same as 'voice activity detector ... [being] deactivated"' and (2) Lu's
"making a 'V AD decision' suggests that the voice activity detector is
already active, not activated 'based on determining that the audio signal
energy level has changed"' as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5---6.
5
Appeal2017-004165
Application 13/955186
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive and commensurate
with the scope of claims 1, 23, and 33. Instead, we find the Examiner has
provided a complete response to Appellant's arguments supported by
evidence. Ans. 12. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and
explanations provided therein. Id. Separately, we note Appellants' claims 1,
23, and 33 are very broad and simply require activation of a voice activity
detector and at least one of the one or more signal processing components,
when a monitored audio signal energy level has changed. As such,
Appellants' claims 1, 23, and 33 do not distinguish over Visser or Lu alone.
For example, as acknowledged by Appellants, claim 1 recites, inter
alia: "monitoring an audio signal energy level ... while a voice activity
detector ... [is] deactivated." As recognized by the Examiner, "when a
device/phone is turned on at a very first time, a V AD [voice activity
detector] was not activated." Ans. 12. However, microphones 102-104,
shown in Visser's Figure 1, are still responsive to monitor speech (i.e., audio
signal), while voice activity detector (VAD) 106 is not activated.
According to Visser, voice activity detector (VAD) 106 is not activated until
two input signals 105 indicate speech (i.e., audio signal of a sufficient
threshold). Upon detecting speech, V AD 106 then generates a control signal
to activate one or more signal processing components, i.e., signal separation
process 180, learning process 188, volume adjustment 189, noise estimation
190, noise reduction 192, AGC 194, and post processing 195, shown in
Figure 2, in order to save power. Visser i-fi-140, 51-52, 55-57.
A disclosure such as Visser that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102
also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in all but rare
cases. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974); cf Cohesive
6
Appeal2017-004165
Application 13/955186
Tech v. Water Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("novelty under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are separate
conditions of patentability").
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the
Examiner's obviousness rejection and sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1, 23, and 3 3 and its dependent claims 3-5,
7-22, 25, 27, and 29-32, which Appellants do not argue separately. App.
Br. 10.
Claims 2 and 24
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites, "wherein activating
the voice activity detector and the at least one of the one or more signal
processing components comprises: based on determining that the audio
signal energy level has changed running the voice activity detector on the
audio signal." Claim 24 depends from claim 23, and recites similar
limitations.
Appellants argue the Examiner's combination of Visser and Lu does
not teach or suggest "based on determining that the audio signal energy level
has changed running the voice activity detector on the audio signal." App.
Br. 6-7 (citing Visser i-fi-141, 43, Fig. 2; Lu's Fig. 2).
We disagree. The phrase "running the voice activity detector" is
nothing more than a subset of "activating the voice activity detector." As
recognized by the Examiner, Lu's voice activity detector (VAD) runs when
user's voice (speech) is picked up via microphones 102a-102b, shown in
Figure 2. Ans. 13 (citing Lu 3:48-56). Like Lu, Visser also teaches
"running the voice activity detector on the audio signal [when the audio
7
Appeal2017-004165
Application 13/955186
signal energy level has changed]" as recited in claims 2 and 24. See Visser
iii! 22, 40.
For these reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 2 and 24.
Claims 6 and 2 8
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and intervening claim 3, and further
recites: "determining, by the noise estimator, that noise suppression is not
required for the audio signal; and performing voice recognition on the audio
signal without activating a noise suppressor." Claim 28 recites similar
limitations.
Appellants argue the Examiner's combination of Visser, Lu, and
Hennecke does not teach or suggest: (1) "determining, by the noise
estimator, that noise suppression is not required for the audio signal;" and
(2) "performing voice recognition on the audio signal without activating a
noise suppressor." App. Br. 7-9 (citing Visserifif 41, 43, Fig. 2; Lu's Fig.
2).
Again, we disagree and adopt the Examiner's findings and
explanations provided on page 13 of the Examiner's Answer. Accordingly,
we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 28.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 23-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Appeal2017-004165
Application 13/955186
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10
and 23-34.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2011 ).
AFFIRMED
9