Ex Parte Krishnan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

11915834 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111915,834 11128/2007
23696 7590 08/31/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Venkatesh Krishnan
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.
070075 9603
EXAMINER
ADESANYA, OLUJIMI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/3112016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VENKATESH KRISHNAN, VIVEK RAJENDRAN,
and ANANTHAP ADMANABHAN A. KANDHADAI
Appeal2015-006309
Application 11/915,834 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 7-9, 12-14, 16-18, 20, 22, 23,
26, 28, 30, 32, 34--39, 41--45, and 49-51. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to communication techniques
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
2 The Examiner objected to claim 40, but it is otherwise allowable if written
in independent form.
Appeal2015-006309
Application 11/915,834
for encoding and decoding audio signals. Spec. i12. Claim 12 is illustrative
of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below with emphasis
added to highlight the dispositive disputed limitation.
12. A method comprising:
determining sparseness of an input signal in at least a
time domain and a transform domain based on a plurality of
parameters of the input signal;
comparing the sparseness of the input signal in the time
domain to the sparseness of the input signal in the transform
domain;
determining at least one count based on prior selections
of a time-domain encoder and prior selections of a transform-
domain encoder;
selecting an encoder from at least the time-domain
encoder and the transform-domain encoder based on the
comparison and the at least one count; and
encoding the input signal based on the selected encoder.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 12, 16, 2 0, 2 6, 41, and 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Liljeryd et
al. (US 6,978,236B1; issued Dec. 20, 2005) (hereinafter "Liljeryd") and
Kim et al. (US 2007/0106502 Al; published May 10, 2007) (hereinafter
"Kim").
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23,
28, 32, 34, 49, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Liljeryd, Kim, and Ananthapadmanabhan et al. (US
2004/0260542 Al; published Dec, 23, 2004) (hereinafter
"Ananthapadmanabhan").
2
Appeal2015-006309
Application 11/915,834
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 35-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Liljeryd, Kim,
Ananthapadmanabhan, and Kizuki et al. (US 5,684,829; issued Nov. 4,
1997).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 42--45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Liljeryd, Kim, and Kizuki.
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Liljeryd, Kim,
Ananthapadmanabhan, and Kirchherr et al. (US 2003/0009325 Al;
published Jan. 9, 2003).
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
finding Kim teaches or suggests "determining at least one count based on
prior selections of a time-domain encoder and prior selections of a
transform-domain encoder," as recited in claims 12 and 16, and similarly
recited in claims 1 and 20. 3
ANALYSIS
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive with respect to Kim failing
to teach or suggest the above dispositive, disputed limitation.
Appellants contend Kim fails to teach or suggest determining a count.
App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants begin by arguing one of ordinary
3 The Examiner relies on Kim for teaching this disputed limitation for the
obviousness combination directed to independent claims 12, 16, and 20, as
well as the combination directed to independent claim 1.
3
Appeal2015-006309
Application 11/915,834
skill in the art would understand the ordinary and customary meaning of
"count" to be a "'calculation' or 'computation."' Reply Br. 4 (citing a
Google definition for count); https://www.google.com/#q=define+count.
Appellants further argue their count definition is consistent with the
Specification. See Reply Br. 3--4. For example, Appellants note the
Specification provides:
Decision module 340 may maintain a time-domain history
count Hr and a transform-domain history count HM. Time-
domain history count Hr may be increased whenever a frame is
deemed more sparse in the time domain and decreased
whenever a frame is deemed more sparse in the transform
domain. Transform-domain history count HM may be increased
whenever a frame is deemed more sparse in the transform
domain and decreased whenever a frame is deemed more sparse
in the time domain.
Reply Br. 3--4 (citing Spec. ,-r 59). 4
Appellants also cite their Figure 6A and a corresponding paragraph in
the Specification describing the figure for further support that "count" means
a calculation or computation. Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. Fig. 6A (showing,
inter alia, resetting history counts to zero if previous frame was silence or
noisy), i-f 64); Spec. i-f 64 ("ZTI and ZT2 are threshold values against which
time-domain history count Hr is compared, and ZM1, ZM2, ZMJ are threshold
values against which transform-domain history count HM is compared. U TI,
U T2 and U T3 are increment amounts for Hr when time-domain encoder 13 6 is
selected, and UM1, UM2 and UMJ are increment amounts for HM when
4 Appellants cite to the published Application when citing the Specification.
Herein, we instead cite to the equivalent paragraphs in the March 23, 2009
filed Specification.
4
Appeal2015-006309
Application 11/915,834
transform-domain encoder 13 8 is selected.").
As to Kim, Appellants argue it instead teaches using a linear
predictive coding ("LPC") coefficient of a frame in encoding a next frame to
transform a frequency domain signal to the time domain. See App. Br. 10
(citing Kim i-fi-156-57, 67); Reply Br. 4 (citing Kim i167). Appellants, thus,
contend Kim - and the respective combinations - fails to teach or suggest
determining at least one count based on prior selections (i.e., determining a
calculation or computation). See App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds the combination teaches the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 58-62. The Examiner begins by construing "count" and then
applies this meaning to Kim. Ans. 58. The Examiner finds count means "as
a reckoning or an account or a record of something." Id. (emphasis omitted)
(citing Count, MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY). As to Kim, the Examiner
finds it teaches or suggests determining a count because Kim teaches storing
the LPC encoding component used in a previous frame - which is an
account or record of the previous selection - and using the LPC coefficient
"in performing the encoding of the current frame using either a time based
encoder or a frequency/transform base encoder." Ans. 59 (citing Kim
i-fi-f 56-57, Fig. 4).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with
Appellants that the Examiner's construction for "count" is incorrect.
Although "the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification[,] ... claims should always be read in light
of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent." In re Suit co
Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259---60 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted);
Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
5
Appeal2015-006309
Application 11/915,834
We find one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the Specification and
claim language, would have understood count to mean a computation or
calculation (e.g., incrementing an amount) rather than meaning a reckoning
or accounting for something. See Spec. i-fi-159, 64 (providing, for example,
incrementing the history count HT when the time-domain encoder is
selected); Fig. 6A (disclosing computations, including incrementing,
decrementing, and resetting history counts, based on prior selections). We,
thus, also agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Kim fail to teach or
suggest determining a count, but instead teach using a prior value (e.g., LPC
coefficient) in encoding a frame. See Kim i-fi-156-57, Fig. 4. We also note
that definitions provided by the Merriam Webster Dictionary for "count"
and selected by the Examiner (i.e., reckoning and account) are listed as
archaic. See Count, MERRIAM WEBESTER DICTIONARY,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/count (last visited August 17,
2016); see also id. (providing "a total obtained by counting" as a definition
for count).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner's§ 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 12, 16, and 20, as well
as the§ 103 rejections of claims 2--4, 7-9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23, 26, 28, 30,
32, 34--39, 41--45, and 49-51, which each depend from one of these
independent claims, and, thus, also incorporate this disputed limitation.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 1--4, 7-9, 12-
14, 16-18,20,22,23,26,28,30,32,34-39,41--45,and49-51.
6
Appeal2015-006309
Application 11/915,834
REVERSED
7